The sitting begun and suspended on Monday 8March1999 was resumed at 10.31am.

Assembly Standing Orders

Lord Alderdice: Yesterday MrDavidFord asked whether the draft Standing Order referring to "Unionist", "Nationalist" and "Other" might be in contravention of Her Majesty’s Government’s undertakings internationally. I have sought legal advice on the question, but it may well be that clear legal advice will not be forthcoming prior to our having to take a vote at the end of today’s proceedings.
If such advice is forthcoming I will at a convenient time bring it and, insofar as I can, its consequences to the attention of the Assembly. If such advice has not been received by the time the Assembly votes, the Standing Orders that we will, I trust, approve will not, by dint of that, be determined. They will go to the Secretary of State, who will then make the determination in advance of devolution.
As it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility, as far as I understand it, to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government’s international obligations are maintained she will be scrutinising the Standing Orders that we put forward. If it is her belief that one of them is in contravention of international obligations, she would be within her rights were she to make a determination different from that of the Assembly, either in favour of the Alliance amendment or otherwise. In any case the matter will go to the Secretary of State following any decision of the Assembly.
Of course, if definitive legal advice comes to my attention before we come to the vote, I will at a convenient point bring it to the attention of the Assembly.
Legislation

Lord Alderdice: We move now to the section on legislation. The amendments on the Marshalled List begin with No22, which stands in the name of MrPeterRobinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: This amendment deals with how the Committees will operate when they are considering matters in relation to, for instance, a Bill brought to them by the Assembly. The words whose removal I am suggesting —
"to be made to the Bill" —
indicate something that definitely will occur. I am suggesting they be replaced by words which indicate that a Bill may be proposed. That would give an option. I imagine that this Committee will make a series of recommendations, which may, indeed, become proposals for amendments, but I suspect that, as the purpose of the Committee is to advise and assist a Minister, it would be a very foolish Minister indeed who would not take the recommendations of his Committee and consider them very seriously.
At that stage he might well agree to adopt some of those amendments as part of the Bill and therefore there would be a Government amendment relating to them. There may be others which he might be able to convince the Committee should not be accepted in the way that it has suggested, and the Committee may decide not to move the amendment.
Amendment No22 provides for that degree of flexibility which will allow a Minister to adopt Committee recommendations and for the Committee, on reflection, to accept whatever argument is put by a Minister. As it stands at the moment, the amendments have to be made. I am not sure if the word "made" is appropriate. The word "moved" would be more appropriate if one were to stick with the original text. The amendment should allow more flexibility in the working of the Committee system.
I need not spend much time on amendment No21. A Bill is set down "on" and not "in".
Amendment No 20 seems to have been caused by an error in the typing of the report or in its compilation. With the erratum being applied to Standing Order 31, the heading is "Public Bills: Human Rights Issues". The heading for Standing Order 32 is "Public Bills: Equality Issues". However, in No32(1) there is reference to "human rights" instead of "equality requirements". Amendments17, 18 and 19, whose purpose is to remove the words "and observance of human rights", are consequential. Legal advice is that if the original Standing Order is clearly wrong some further tidying up might be required, and the Committee might want to look at that. Indeed, it might fall within the context of the catch-all amendment that we had to the notice of motion, which allows some tidying up to be done.

Dr Sean Farren: With regard to Standing Order32(1), the point which has been made regarding the reference to "human rights" and its replacement by "equality requirements" is one that is well taken. However, with reference to the following amendments that the Member is proposing, would he not accept that all references to "human rights" might well be required, given that all equality measures may not be covered simply by a reference to "equality rights"?

Mr Peter Robinson: It is my understanding that the Standing Orders Committee was attempting to divide human rights and equality issues, recognising that a particular statutory responsibility for human rights has been placed on the Human Rights Commission. There is a real legal difficulty if an Assembly Committee seeks to take over responsibilities which have been given to a statutory body, the Human Rights Commission, no matter what one might think of the present composition of it. I am quite happy that the lawyers look at it and tidy it up in whatever way is necessary. It is not that I want particularly to take out the reference, but we may be getting into legal difficulties if we give a task which has to be performed legally by a Human Rights Commission to a Committee of the Assembly.

Mr Denis Haughey: Would MrRobinson be prepared to withdraw the amendments Nos17, 18 and 19 on the basis that he has properly brought the House’s attention to what may require some legal expertise? If he were to withdraw them it would save us having to vote them down in order that they go back and be reconsidered. I would be glad to give such an undertaking as joint-Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am comfortable with MrHaughey’s proposal. As I have said, I have no emotional capital tied up in the wording of the Standing Order. We need to deal with it, but I would not like to keep it in and find that we are in conflict with the law. That is the last thing I should want.
Amendment No16 seeks to replace "bill" with "Bill". I hope that there is no controversy over that proposal. Amendment No15 is similar to an earlier amendment, inserting "on" in place of "in".
Amendment No14 requires "main" options to be considered. I suspect that when a Department is preparing a Bill it considers a plethora of options. Some of them might not be seriously considered, but if the Department were required to include all the options the Bill would be a very untidy document. Simply to include the main propositions seems sensible. For consistency, a change is required to brackets in Standing Orders37 and 38. I have not referred to those specifically as they should be included in the catch-all amendment at the beginning.
With regard to amendment No13, there seems to be an assumption on the part of the drafter of the Standing Orders that there must be more than one reason for everything, because throughout the Standing Orders we have to give reasons. It should be "reason or reasons" in case there is only one reason. I am sure that the Women’s Coalition will applaud me for amendment No12, in which I am being gender-sensitive. MrSammy Wilson helped me to word the amendment.
Regarding amendment No11, it is not the responsibility of a Committee to "require" Departments to do anything. The person who is responsible for a Department is a Minister, and the Committee has direct control of the Minister, as the Assembly would. The amendment should tidy up the Standing Order.
Those are all the amendments in my name, and I beg to move them.

Lord Alderdice: I have no requests from Members to speak on this group of amendments, so we shall simply take decisions on them and on the relevant Standing Orders.
Standing Order 27 (Public Bills: Introduction and First Stage) agreed to.
Standing Order 28 (Stages in Consideration of Public Bills) agreed to.
Standing Order 29 (Public Bills: Second Stage) agreed to.
Standing Order 30 (Public Bills: Committee Stage)
Amendment (No22) made: 
Amendment (No21) made: 
Standing Order 30, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 31 (Public Bills: Human Rights Issues) agreed to.
Standing Order 32 (Public Bills: Equality Issues)
Amendment (No20) made:

Lord Alderdice: Are amendments Nos19, 18 and 17 moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Not moved.
Standing Order 32, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 33 (Public Bills: Consideration Stage) agreed to.
Standing Order 34 (Public Bills: Amendments)
Amendment (No16) made: 
Standing Order 34, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 35 (Public Bills: Final Stage)
Amendment (No15) made: 
Standing Order 35, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 36 (Public Bills: Reconsideration) agreed to.
Standing Order 37 (Public Bills: Explanatory and Financial Memoranda)
Amendment (No14) made: 
Standing Order 37, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 38 (Public Bills: Special Scheduling Requirement)
Amendment (No13) made: 
Amendment (No12) made:
Standing Order 38, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 39 (Statutory Rules of NorthernIreland)
Amendment (No11) made: 
Standing Order39, as amended, agreed to.
Ministerial Appointments

Lord Alderdice: We now move to the section on the appointment of Ministers.

Mr Peter Robinson: Paragraph (1) of Standing Order40 ends with the words "are as follows". Either the next two paragraphs must be incorporated into this one or we must make the reference contained in amendment No45. It is simply a tidying-up amendment.
Standing Order40 refers to the "Northern Ireland Act". It should be the "Northern Ireland Act 1998". I do not believe that there is any substantial point there.
Amendment No46 proposes that after Standing Order40(2)(e) we insert a new subparagraph.
There are a number of areas where it is necessary to provide cover in this Standing Order. There is a gap or a route back into an Executive for those who are determined not to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, for those who are found not to have fulfilled the pledge of office or carried out the task which they were to perform. There was a way of filling a position when a vacancy occurred by retirement, resignation or death. There is no way back.
I shall give some examples of what might arise from a principled decision. None of the examples should be taken as an intention. A party might decide that the Assembly needed a much stronger constitutional and legitimate Opposition, and might decide to move into Opposition rather than remain in the Government. That would be a principled decision. Will the members of that party be given fewer rights than those who were put out of the Government because they were involved in violence or because they broke their pledges? That would be wrong, particularly as all the parties that supported the agreement say that it was about inclusive government. My proposal seeks to fill a gap in the Standing Orders.
Amendment No 47 is necessary because 40(2)(e) is inaccurate. It is prefaced by Standing Order 40(2), which states
"Ministerial offices must be filled by applying the procedures set out in section 18(2) to (6)".
However, in the circumstances referred to in 40(2)(e) the nominating officer does not go through the procedure set out in 18(2) to (6). He simply appoints a replacement. The amendment corrects that inaccuracy.
I now turn to amendment No 49. Standing Order 40(3)(b) refers to asking
"the Assembly to extend that time limit, and gives reasons for so asking".
Again, plurality is required by the Standing Orders, though there may be only one reason.
In Standing Order41, the removal of "(1)" is simply for tidying up. As there is only one part, there is no requirement for "(1)".
Amendment No 61 is a tidying-up exercise. The reference in the Standing Order to "Minister" should be to "Ministers".

Mr Denis Haughey: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. There are two elements to amendment No46, and Members may wish to vote differently on them. I ask you to rule that the two elements can be separated and that separate votes may be taken on them. The first element is to leave out Standing Order40(2)(e), and the second is to insert a new paragraph(f).

Lord Alderdice: There is a legitimate argument for these two matters to be taken separately. On occasions, amendments have been separated into sections because they could legally be taken as separate matters. I accept that these could be taken as two separate votes. We will take these as amendments No 46(A) and No 46(B) — 46(A) being "Leave out Standing Order 40 (2)(e)", and 46(B) being the insertion of a new subparagraph. Given that change, MrRobinson may wish to comment on the difference that it would make.

Mr Peter Robinson: I do not object to the change. I am not sure whether I had them separated when I submitted them. The request is slightly disturbing because it suggests that people might deal with them in a different way. If that is the case, it would be a remarkable shift in SDLP policy. I hope that if there is a policy shift we will be given an explanation for it.

Lord Alderdice: That, of course, is a political matter.

Mr Denis Haughey: Our view is that it would be proper to accept Mr P Robinson’s amendment to the existing paragraph(2)(e), as that provision runs contrary to the provisions of the relevant legislation. We would support that.
It seems to us that the second part of amendment 46, which relates to the rerunning of the d’Hondt system in circumstances where the nominating officer did not exercise his rights under the legislation when the Executive was formed but wishes to do so subsequently by notifying the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Speaker of his intention to do so, requires further thought. If it is left open in this way, it will be open to abuse. Therefore we would wish to consider this matter further and will not be accepting the amendment in its current form.

Lord Alderdice: As I have no further requests to speak, I propose that we proceed to the voting.
Standing Order 40 (Appointment of Northern Ireland Ministers — Time Limits)
Amendment (No 45) made: 
Amendment (No 48) made: 
Amendment (No 46A) made: 
Amendment (No 46B) proposed: 
"(f) the nominating officer of a party who did not exercise the power conferred by section 18(2) notifies the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Speaker of his/her intention to do so." —[Mr P Robinson]
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 27; Noes 62.
AYES
Nationalist
None.
Unionist
Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, RevWilliam McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
MrsEileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, John Kelly, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, MrsMary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, MsPauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs Jnr, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, MrsJoan Carson, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Peter Weir.
Other
MsMonica McWilliams, MsJane Morrice.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 89Members. Thirty four Nationalists voted, all of them Noes. The number of Unionist votes was 50, 24 of them Ayes, and 26 Noes. The total number of Ayes is 30.33%. The amendment is lost.
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment (No 47) made: 
"Where the office becomes vacant as mentioned in section 18(10) the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated shall nominate a person to hold the office within a period of seven days." —[MrPRobinson]
Amendment (No49) made:
Standing Order 40, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 41 (Junior Ministers)
Amendment (No 44) made: 
Amendment (No 61) made:
Standing Order 41, as amended, agreed to.
Committees

Lord Alderdice: We now come to the section on Committees.

Dr Joe Hendron: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. This is a point that I should have raised yesterday, but it only occurred to me a while ago. I have not discussed it with either Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee. I am thinking of a vote where the cross-community aspect was important to either side. If a Member were suffering from a chronic illness and unable to attend the Chamber, he or she could come by car, as happens in the House of Commons — and you will be aware of this — to the precincts of the Building. An officer appointed by the Speaker could go out, see the person and record his or her vote. That should happen here. I am not proposing an amendment, but could the Chairmen of the Standing Orders Committee take that on board for the future?

Lord Alderdice: Your remarks, while strictly speaking not a point of order, raise a useful question of procedure. Since the matter is now on the record, I am sure that it will be given consideration by the joint Chairmen.
We now come to the section on Committees — a substantial section from Standing Order42 to, I think, 56 — and there is a considerable number of amendments. There may be matters arising which we will have to address.
I want to draw Members’ attention to amendments 3A through to 3E, which were submitted as a single amendment. They have been divided up for ease of reference as Members go through the Marshalled List, but I will take them as a single amendment.
Amendments 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 refer to precisely the same matters as amendments 3A to 3E. When we come to the vote — and it makes no difference in terms of our consideration of the matter — I will take amendments 3A to 3E as a single vote. If Members are agreed on that, amendments 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 will therefore not be moved as they will have already been agreed.
If, however, Members do not agree to take amendments 3A to 3E on the first and single vote, then amendments 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 may, if the proposer wishes, be moved separately, and there will be a separate vote on each of them. I trust that this is clear. When it comes to the vote, I will draw it to Members’ attention again in order to avoid confusion.
The first amendment in this group is No60, which stands in the name of MrPeter Robinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: I will not try to speak to all of the amendments in my name in this section. It might make more sense if I were simply to address the issues relating to the establishment of Statutory Committees in Standing Order44 and resume my seat at that stage. There is a substantial piece of business to be transacted on that single Standing Order, and it might be appropriate for Members to look at this one — even to vote on it — before coming back to the others.
Of the amendments that I have, the substantive one is No 59, which is to do with the setting up of a Special Scrutiny Committee to deal with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The other two or three amendments immediately surrounding it on the list of groupings are consequential amendments.
This subject was discussed during our meeting yesterday, and considerable concern was expressed at the gap in the legislation in relation to the setting up of the Statutory Committees. It is clear — and cannot be disputed — that the legislation specifically requires the Assembly to set up statutory committees dealing with all the subjects that are the responsibility of Northern Ireland Ministers. I think that the legal advice correctly defines them as being the Ministers responsible for the 10new Departments. Therefore there is no statutory requirement — I use the word "requirement" advisedly — to set up a committee in relation to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Having looked at the synopsis of the legal advice given to the Standing Orders Committee, I am not clear if the legal adviser was asked if a Statutory Committee was one which was required by statute or one which was permitted by statute. I have no doubt that, under the Standing Orders provision contained in the Act, permission is given to the Assembly to set up committees of whatever shape and variety. Whether it is a statutory committee because the statute so permits, I am not legally competent to answer. I have asked those who should be legally competent, and they are unsure as to the position.
Therefore instead of tabling an amendment, which I think I could have done, stating that a Statutory Committee is one that is permitted rather than required by statute, I have taken the softer option, which is not to attempt to call it a Statutory Committee but to set up a special scrutiny committee. We are empowered to do that by the legislation. That committee will have all of the powers and functions of a Statutory Committee and will look at the roles of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, and junior Ministers within their Department. It is a Statutory Committee by another name, but it is within the Assembly’s legal competence.
Being charitable, I imagine that the wise owls in London who drafted the legislation made a mistake when they did not insert a clause to cover this matter. Perhaps they never considered such a possibility. It could be that they did not expect the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to grab so many functions and place them in the central Department. As it stands, the First and Deputy First Ministers, who have the authority to issue determinations, could take more and more responsibility to the central Department. Without scrutiny, they could take key government issues away from the eyes of Members and the public.
I cannot imagine anyone being prepared to state publicly that the actions of the First and Deputy First Ministers are such that they should not be scrutinised. In a general acceptance that there should be scrutiny, the only two not fighting hard for it would be those two Ministers. They might enjoy the chance to justify their actions to a committee. A more malevolent view creeping around the Assembly is that we are witnessing part of a conspiracy. It is said that it is impossible for legislative draftsmen not to have foreseen the possibility, and that there was a deliberate exercise to ensure that there would be no scrutiny, or inadequate scrutiny, of what the First and Deputy First Ministers are doing.
I do not need to take sides on this issue. It is sufficient to say that the amendment suggests a mechanism by which we can fill this unfortunate gap until such times as the legislation may change. The Assembly has the power to do that. I hope that the committee wants to do it and that there are no vested interests in the Assembly that would seek to protect the First and Deputy First Ministers from scrutiny. There will certainly be matters under the control of the central Department that will need to be scrutinised. The equality agenda will clearly require scrutiny. Those who are the guardians of equality would place themselves in a weak position if they were not prepared to have their actions scrutinised.
There has been an attempt to withdraw powers from the Department of Finance and Personnel, especially in relation to the Economic Policy Unit. That key government function — the strategy for the Northern Ireland economy — will be determined by that body. Is it conceivable that the Assembly would be unable to scrutinise such an important function? There is a clear requirement to scrutinise, and my proposal allows the Assembly at least a stop-gap measure until the legislation is corrected.
There are one or two other amendments in my name in relation to the setting up of the Statutory Committees. Standing Order44 requires the speaker to supervise the establishment of Statutory Committees. The word "given" in 44(2) suggests that Members must accept, but that may not be what every Member wants. Amendment No57 seeks to insert the word "offered", which would allow Member to decide whether to accept.
Also, the Speaker should be excluded from being a member of a Statutory Committee, yet the Standing Order does not specifically indicate that. That is normal practice and that should be reflected in the Standing Order.
Standing Order 44(5) says
"For the purposes of paragraph (4) a nominating officer has a party interest in a Committee if it is established to advise and assist a Minister who is a member of his/her party."
The present thinking of the current First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) is that there may not be junior Ministers in Departments, but the Standing Orders that we are devising are not simply for the first term or for the duration of their tenure. They will go beyond that, and it is conceivable that, in the future, the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) will change their minds and there will be junior Ministers in Departments. I do not believe that any party should nominate a Chairperson or a deputy Chairperson to a Committee if it has a junior Minister from its party in the Department that that Committee is to scrutinise. This amendment is not for immediate use, it is for the future .
That covers all the amendments in my name to Standing Order44, and I beg to move them.

Mr Alan McFarland: My comments refer to amendment59. A situation has arisen that means that some areas are not going to be scrutinised because of the legislation which was passed in November1998 before the parties’ negotiations in December1998 which led to an agreement on 18December1998 to move various areas of responsibility from Departments into the centre. That is the reason for this anomaly.
This is not a simple issue. It is complicated in that the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) will clearly have a view on this. While I agree that there are areas that appear to require some degree of oversight by the Assembly, it would be sensible to discuss this with the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate), obtain their views and reach an agreed outcome. This is something that requires further scrutiny and should be referred back to the Committee.

Mr Denis Haughey: The SDLP feels that with regard to amendments 60, 59, 56 and 55, which have to do with oversight of the Executive functions carried out by the First and Deputy First Ministers, there is a lack of clarity in the Act. Whereas the Good Friday Agreement makes reference to the need for scrutiny of the main Executive functions of the new Administration, it is not clear how this can be done in a way that is consistent with the legislation. I agree with MrMcFarland that this is a matter which requires further study to enable us to come up with a formula which would accomplish the purposes of the Assembly.
The SDLP also feels that amendment54 is a matter that needs to be looked at more carefully. As the amendment is currently drafted, it could be restrictive and, in certain circumstances, impracticable.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. One of my Colleagues will speak to the amendments on the special scrutiny committee proposed by MrPRobinson. I wish to address amendment84, put forward by the Alliance Party, which will alter the number on the Statutory Committees from 11to12.

Mr David Ford: To save MrMurphy’s time, the Alliance Party does not propose to move that amendment, given the assurances it has received.

Mr Conor Murphy: That is fine. I was going to put on record our position. We supported11 but were prepared to go to 14 to accommodate the smaller parties such as the Women’s Coalition and the PUP. The amendment, as suggested, would accommodate the Alliance Party but not these smaller parties.
On amendment 52, proposed by MrPRobinson, the issue is whether committees should be forced to suspend their business when a vote is being taken in plenary session, or whether they have discretion. Members may be stuck dealing with a vital vote in a committee when there is also a vital vote in the plenary session. Our opinion is that committees should retain discretion in such cases. Our experience is that most of the committees have operated sensibly to date. If there are vital votes being held in plenary session, Members should be allowed to leave.
There are a number of amendments regarding deleting the reference to membership of non-statutory committees. We will not support these, on the understanding that the issue will revert to the Standing Orders Committee who will deliberate further on it and that it does not go back to 11.

Mr Jim Wells: I support MrPRobinson. MrMcFarland felt that the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) would have a view on this matter. I am sure that they do. Human nature is such that their view would be that they will not want to be scrutinised. They will want to hide behind the privilege of being able to control a huge section of the Government of this Province without being subject to adequate scrutiny.
No one will want to be brought to account before a Statutory Committee of this Assembly. That is the nature of politics. If they have a view on the subject, they will have realised weeks or months ago that this issue was going to come up. They have had plenty of time to consider their view. The matter came up several times at the Standing Orders Committee when I was present. They will have seen that there are a whole series of amendments on the subject, and they should be in the Chamber to give us their considered view.
My concern is that if we take up the suggestion made by MrMcFarland and MrHaughey — if we sideline this issue and go on — an attempt will be made quietly to forget it. This is our opportunity to get the Standing Orders that this Assembly needs and to get them right. This was one of the most debated issues in the Committee and one of the most important matters that we discussed. We cannot allow a huge section of the Government of the Province to be controlled by those who are not accountable to this body.

Mr David Ervine: I concur with what the Member says and with the sentiments contained in this amendment. Given that it says there will be a committee for each of the main executive functions of the NorthernIreland Administration — and that wording means that there must be — does the Member share my concern that if we set up a committee which is different from the statutory committees it will be a diluted committee, that it will not be a committee with the proper standing? Given the speed with which the political development Minister was able to put proposals before Parliament last evening, should we not wait for proper legislation?

Mr Jim Wells: The hon Member for East Belfast is reading from the agreement, not from the Act. It is the Act which gives us our statutory powers to scrutinise the work of the various Departments. My view is that this issue will be gently pushed aside, and we will not have an opportunity to get it right from the start.
Mr McFarland made the point that various powers were added to the central control of the First and Second Ministers; that is true. That happened — very conveniently — after the establishment of the Standing Orders Committee and before the issue of its final report. I wonder if that happened by chance. Did they realise, as the legislation was going through, that they could get away with not having a statutory scrutiny committee? Did they, therefore, take the opportunity to add on as many powers as they could to their control so that they had absolute authority on a whole range of issues?
Now, not only have we to be fair in the Chamber, but we have to be seen to be fair. We have to be able publicly — and it is very crucial that it is publicly — to bring the First and Deputy First Ministers to book on issues and guard the rights of minorities. This is the first opportunity we have had to address this issue, and it may be the only one we will have.

Mr James Leslie: Does this mean that the Member and his party are abandoning their adherence to the principle of majority rule?

Mr Jim Wells: The hon Member is showing his inexperience. Scrutiny committees are there to see that justice is done for everyone. We as a party have never stood in the way of adequate scrutiny of the Executive. During the last Assembly from 1982 to 1986 we were the strongest proponents of scrutiny committees. The rights of every party in the House have to be guarded, and, as things stand, if we do not have some form of control over the central Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers, they will be able to ride roughshod over the rights of all the parties in the Assembly except their own.
I am deeply suspicious when MrHaughey and MrMcFarland, who are known to be the lieutenants, the right-hand men, of the two Gentlemen concerned, are quick to their feet to say that we must wait for the considered views of MrTrimble and MrMallon. It is only about a three-minute walk from their offices to the Chamber, so let us have them here, hear their considered views and vote on this important issue.

Lord Alderdice: It is clear from comments that were made earlier, particularly by the Members who moved this list of amendments, and from the number of Members who want to speak that there is very considerable interest on the part of the Assembly in addressing this matter.
The proposition was made that we would speak to this matter rather than consider the whole raft of amendments for this section on Committees as one piece and then vote on all of them right at the end. It does seem to me that that proposition has some merit. We are going to be debating for some time, before and after lunch, and then voting later on.
I therefore rule that we will now take all the speeches on the set of amendments up to amendment 54, that is the amendments to Standing Orders42 to 44. A substantial number of Members have indicated that they wish to address those matters. We will then vote on them and then continue with the rest of the amendments to the section on Committees.
If we do not do this we will be debating backwards and forwards on a whole series of matters and then voting on them very much later in the day.

Mr Seamus Close: I find myself in total agreement with the sentiments that have been expressed by the Member, MrPeterRobinson, particularly on amendment No59. There is a responsibility — indeed, a duty — on all Members to ensure that all areas are subject to proper scrutiny. I hope that there will be no dissent from that view. It should be a matter of principle on the parts of everyone that all Ministers, be they the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister, be subject to the utmost scrutiny by all elected representatives who operate on behalf of their constituents. I have no difficulty with amendment No60 at all.
While agreeing with the sentiments, I do have a difficulty with the proposal that this special scrutiny committee should have the same powers and perform the same functions as a Statutory Committee. I question if that is not ultra vires in respect of Standing Orders.
I am not legally qualified, and I recognise that I speak in the presence of people who are qualified in law. However, it is my contention, and I am subject to the correction of those eminent lawyers in the Chamber, that to try to give the same powers to a scrutiny committee that have been given by the Act to another type of committee is really cutting across the point of the Act itself. Why have an Act at all, if, through Standing Orders, we can give the same powers to committees as those set up and empowered by the Act?
I have difficulty with that. I want the centre to be scrutinised, and it must be subject to exactly the same scrutiny as all other Statutory Committees. I share the concern of Members who question whether this was some sort of an accident or an oversight. I am on record as saying that I believe that it is probably deliberate.

Mr Peter Robinson: I think that I am right in saying that he is a member of a district council. District councils decide their own standing orders, and can draw up whatever standing orders they want, provided they do not conflict with legislation. We are in exactly the same position. Section41 of the Act allows the Assembly to determine its Standing Orders, provided it does not go beyond its powers. By carrying out the job that the Act asks us to do, we can hardly be ultra vires.

Mr Seamus Close: I understand Mr Robinson’s point. Section29 of the Act gives the statutory powers for the establishment of the committees. If we try to establish committees that have the same powers as those Statutory Committees, I question whether we would be operating ultra vires the Act. Perhaps we both require legal advice on that matter.

Mr Peter Robinson: Section 29 requires the Assembly to do something. Nowhere does it try to stop it from doing something else. It is a requirement, but it does not take away the permissive powers within the legislation for us to set up committees.

Mr Seamus Close: The Act is establishing Statutory Committees. Now it is really getting difficult.

Mr Robert McCartney: The provisions in the Act relating to the establishment of the Statutory Committees are mandatory. Those committees must be established. MrRobinson is referring to the fact that although it states that some must be established and therefore cannot be done without, that is no bar to the creation of others should the Assembly, under its inherent statutory powers, decides to do that.

Mr Seamus Close: I know when I’m bate — to use a well-known Ulster expression. I do not propose to take on an eminent QC.
I share the view that the utmost scrutiny should be applied to those who will be at the centre, and they should not run away from that fact. If amendment No59 enables that to happen, I shall be content to go along with it. If it is ultra vires, I will have difficulty with it.
I understand that on the completion of our discussions on the report it will be subject to full legal scrutiny. In that context, I am prepared to go along with it because I feel strongly that there must be power to scrutinise the centre. Neither I nor any member of my party believes in dictatorship, be it benign or otherwise. The more power that is sucked into the centre, the more difficult it will be to hold people to account without proper Statutory Committees.
On the clear understanding that the report will be subject to legal scrutiny and advice, my party can go along with the amendment.

Mr Robert McCartney: In my speech yesterday I referred to the balance between the legislative process and control of the Assembly and the Executive. This has, to a degree, been recognised in the legislation itself, in as much as the Act provides that the 10Ministries be subject to the scrutiny of 10committees. As I have already indicated, the fact that the Act requires, in a mandatory fashion, that committees be established to supervise and scrutinise each of the 10Ministries recognises the principle that there must be control by the legislature and by Assembly Members over those exercising executive power.
It follows inevitably from that principle that there should be a scrutiny committee for members of the Executive, as they are collectively exercising more power than any Minister of a Department. Whether one believes in the conspiracy theory or in the "cock-up" theory, it may be that it was originally intended no such scrutiny committee would be required. It may not have been envisaged that the First or the Deputy First Ministers would have control of a specific department, but rather that their work would be more like that of a PrimeMinister, supervising the whole range of Cabinet activities under other Ministers. However, during the passage of this legislation, the Centre was clearly given a full range of powers over some very fundamental and essential areas of government.
It is an established principle of democratic government, no matter where it is practised, that the legislative process, the judicial process and the executive process should be subject to a series of checks and balances, a principle already recognised in the legislation that set up the 10Ministries. Members must realise that we have one thing in common in this Chamber: we are all elected representatives and Members of the Assembly as a legislative body before we are members of individual parties. It is as a Member of the Assembly, rather than as a member of a party, that I strongly recommend the amendment that would create a scrutiny committee specifically to check the activities of the twoMinisters who will exercise the most central and fundamental power in the Executive.
It is an established principle in the United States that the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary all have to be totally independent in order to work. Indeed, the French political philosopher Montesquieu misunderstood the British constitution, which in a sense is flawed in this regard, in that he believed that the British legislature and its Executive were separate. We know that Labour, with a majority of 176, can control the legislature and can make it nothing more than a rubber stamp, that the Executive is currently triumphant and virtually uncontrolled in the House of Commons — save for the intervention of the fourth estate, and even that safeguard has been seriously weakened by the partnership between MrMurdoch and MrBlair.
We must not make that mistake here: it is vital that a scrutiny committee be established to check the activities of the First and Deputy First Ministers. These Ministers have significant executive power over areas, such as equality, that are likely to be the subject of conflicting views and interests. The Assembly, if it is dedicated to the equality agenda in the way that has been suggested it is, should also have control of these areas.
Some Members may feel that equality is being sidefooted for political expediency. Others may think that servicing another political agenda is thrusting further into the agenda of our politics than is required. In either event it is an area that ought to be scrutinised and brought within the control of the Assembly. If we fail to do that we shall throw away one of the few elements of control that lie within the Assembly.
Members should seriously consider whether they are content to be treated as lobby fodder for the SDLP or the Ulster Unionist Party. Independent voices must be raised, not only in the smaller parties within and without the Executive, but by those of independent mind who have a specific and honourable view which may not, in all circumstances, be shared by their party leaders. The only place where their voices can be heard is within either the Assembly or in a scrutiny committee that can call to account all those who will exercise executive power.
Members voting on this amendment should vote as democrats, as individual elected Members of the Assembly. They should bear in mind that their duty is to the entire people of Northern Ireland, and that we must serve their interests. Those may not necessarily accord with party interests, should they conflict with a broader, wider and much more important public interest.

Dr Sean Farren: I rise not as a piece of lobby fodder, but as one who subscribes fully to the principles of accountability which, having formed the approach to the establishment of the committee system, will be very much at the heart of the operation of the Assembly.
I wish to dispel any notion that the First and Deputy First Ministers do not want to be accountable. The present holders of those offices would certainly want to make themselves fully accountable to the Assembly in all aspects of their responsibilities. I also wish to dispel the notion that the office of the First and Deputy First Ministers has been endowed with powers and functions that will enable it to minimise the powers and functions of Departments that will be established by the Executive.
There is a danger of Members exaggerating the range of powers and functions that will rest with the First and Deputy First Ministers. As my Colleague Denis Haughey has said, we recognise that we need to address the accountability gap which became apparent to the Standing Orders Committee in respect of some aspects of the work of the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers. We have highlighted on a number of occasions our intention to ensure that the issue of equality is adequately scrutinised and addressed. We want a committee established with responsibilities for that.
We do not believe it is necessary, and this brings me to the heart of our opposition to the amendment.
We do not want all the detail of the First and Deputy First Ministers’ responsibilities to be subject to the type of scrutiny that is implied by the proposal. Again, I emphasise that that is not to say that they will not be accountable. Indeed, the Act itself prescribes just how accountable they will be on some matters. For example, on matters relating to the North/South Ministerial Council, matters that excite and concern some Members, the Act clearly lays down the manner in which the First and Deputy First Ministers are to be accountable to the Assembly. Part 5, section 52 of the Act states the manner in which some of that accountability is to be discharged.
We need to look carefully at how we can ensure that the main Executive functions which now lie within the Offices of the First and the Deputy First Ministers can be subject to scrutiny, but the manner in which they will be subject to scrutiny should be much more discrete than that which is proposed by this catch-all amendment.
The Ministers will ensure full accountability to the Assembly and to the Executive in general. With regard to discrete functions — and I highlight equality in particular — the House can ensure, by way of a dedicated committee, that such responsibilities are adequately and effectively subjected to the type of scrutiny that we all wish to see established.

Mr Edwin Poots: As a member of a "No" party, I have always suggested that the agreement was fraudulent. I am not surprised that Members from the "Yes" camp are trying to avoid scrutiny of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Not all the "Yes" parties are trying to do that, but the two main proponents, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP, are. I am peeved about that since for years the Ulster Unionist Party has talked about accountable democracy. I have already raised this in the House: if the people of Northern Ireland are to believe that we carrying out our duties effectively, accountable democracy is essential.
From the beginning of the Assembly, the areas of responsibility of the First and Deputy First Ministers have increased and it has been agreed that they should appoint junior Ministers. It was noted that on 18December1998 and on the 15February1999 the main increase in departmental responsibility was in the Department of the First and Deputy First Ministers.
I ask the Assembly, the Members from the Ulster Unionist Party and from the SDLP, why the Ministers for Regional Development or the Environment or for the Culture, Arts and Leisure need to answer to a scrutiny committee when the First and Deputy First Ministers do not have to? Open and accountable Government should start at the top. The First and Deputy First Ministers must be held to account for the decisions they make. Their reasons should be made public, and nothing should be decided behind closed doors.
Those decisions will be made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister without reference to the Assembly. Therefore I support MrPRobinson’s amendment establishing this committee to scrutinise the work of those two Ministers. Much of what they do will be supported by the Assembly, but there may be things which will cause concern to my party or to other parties, so it is essential that this scrutiny committee be set up.
12.00

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh. I wish to speak against amendments Nos60, 59, 56 and55, relating to the formation of a committee to scrutinise the work of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The creation of a scrutiny committee would only create another tier of committee work. It is the view of Sinn Féin that what is required is an amendment of the relevant legislation to create a Statutory Committee, or committees, to scrutinise the work of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Such a committee would have full powers of scrutiny and would ensure that there was accountability and transparency in relation to the work of the Offices of Trimble and Mallon.
The proposed amendment may not be sufficient to scrutinise the work of the Offices of the First Minister and the Deputy First Ministers. Therefore this amendment should be referred back to the Committee on Standing Orders to allow it to analyse and assess whether or not it provides the level of scrutiny envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. I am greatly concerned that the kind of detailed scrutiny envisaged in the agreement for the work of other Departments will not apply to the central Offices.
I am particularly concerned that matters relating to the rights of women and gender equality issues are to fall within the remit of the Offices of the First Minister and the Deputy First Ministers. This will mean that Trimble and Mallon will have carte blanche to decide whether or not to act on a particular issue, and there will be no safeguard in the form of a scrutiny committee. I fear that issues relating to the rights of women will be placed far down the list of priorities if they are left in the hands of these two Gentlemen.
As evidence for this, I would like to remind Members that yesterday I hosted a discussion in the Long Gallery, attended by women from all sectors of society, the purpose of which was to acquaint the Assembly with their concerns and aspirations. Each delegate had a number of issues to which they felt the Assembly should attend. These included matters as diverse as health, education, violence against women, telecommunication masts situated close to homes and schools, childcare, poverty, prisoners and hospital closures.
With the exception of my Sinn Féin colleagues, no male Members of the Assembly attended. The fact that neither the First Minister (Designate) nor the Deputy First Minister (Designate) attended gave a very clear message to those hoping to address them that they were of little or no consequence. In the limited time available to us, we agreed some very valuable points. However, most of those at the meeting were already converted, and our discussions would have been of most benefit to those on the other Benches.
The disregard shown to this gathering of women, on International Women’s Day, gives us an indication of the importance attached to gender equality by the Assembly. This is why I am arguing strongly against amendments Nos55, 56, 59 and60. I want to ensure that adequate attention is given to the rights of women, victims, minorities and to the whole issue of equality.
Any body with responsibility for scrutinising the work of the Offices of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must have real powers to protect the rights of the individual. There is a great need for this scrutiny, and we cannot accept a half-hearted attempt at this. We must get it right, and we cannot allow this issue to be sidelined. We must ensure that the necessary structures are in place to scrutinise the work of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Go raibh maith agat.

Lord Alderdice: I would like to remind Members that we should refer to each other using whatever title or office is appropriate, in whatever language, and not just by surnames alone.

Mr Peter Weir: As someone who, to use the analogy used by the Member for South Down, was not so much a lieutenant as the defendant in a recent court martial, I feel that I can bring a reasonably independent perspective to this issue. Some might suggest that I found myself with a weapon by my side, but that the police are not investigating any suspicious circumstances.
I find a great deal of merit in the proposals that have been put forward in terms of amendment59. I take on board the comments made by, among others, MrMcFarland and MrHaughey that there will be a re-examination of the issue. I welcome that. The amendment, as drafted, is perhaps not perfect, but in the absence of any other specific proposals on the matter the Assembly should support it.
The Assembly represents a rather unique form of government, which is designed to include some 80% of Members in a "Government party". That has its merits and also its problems. One of the weaknesses with the Government’s being so overwhelmingly supported in the Assembly is that there is a lack of coherent opposition. The Alliance Party, with the greatest respect to it, is the largest opposition party in the Assembly, and I am sure that it will provide constructive opposition, but it is only a very small party.
Therefore the only way in which the normal notion of government and opposition can operate is by a very strong committee system, with strong Back-Benchers exercising control over the Ministers. It is utterly illogical to suggest that the vast range of functions, spread over the ten Departments, will be scrutinised — as they should be — while no method has as yet been put forward to scrutinise the most important Department, that of the First and Deputy First Ministers.
If the situation were akin to that at Westminster, and the First and Deputy First Ministers retained essentially only the role of Prime Minister, one could perhaps see a degree of logic in not having a specific scrutiny committee. However, there have been allocated to the First and Deputy First Ministers, I think with some logic, powers over issues such as equality and certain finance matters. Given this, it is equally logical that there should be proper scrutiny of these issues.
For example, there are grey areas between the economic policy unit of the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers and the responsibilities of the Minister for Finance. It would be entirely illogical to scrutinise fully a function of the Finance Minister but not to scrutinise that same function if it were performed by the junior Minister in the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers. In the latter, it would either receive no scrutiny or perhaps, under the proposals that will come forward, a lesser degree of scrutiny. To use the classical analogy, no one should be above suspicion, not even Caesar’s wife.
To go down the route suggested by the Standing Orders, and not have direct scrutiny of the First and Deputy First Ministers, is to leave a very black hole.

Mr Denis Haughey: As Mr Weir said, this is going to be a unique form of administration. That being so, it is not appropriate to import notions of government and opposition. Members here will belong to parties which are in the administration and, in a sense, also in opposition. The scrutiny committees may well take a form that will result in Ministers getting a rougher ride from members of their own party than from members of other parties. That would constitute an opposition process.

Mr Peter Weir: I agree that we should not import certain things from elsewhere. At Westminster there is no Select Committee to deal specifically with the Prime Minister’s affairs. Members are in a different situation here, and there should be proper scrutiny of the issue.
In terms of opposition, there needs to be proper scrutiny. While some degree of opposition will be created by parties which are also in government — perhaps in different Departments — we need to strengthen that role so that Back-Benchers can ensure that proper democratic scrutiny takes place.
As I have indicated, if proposals come forward — and I will certainly accept the thinking that even this amendment is not perfect — we should look at them. There may well be members of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist parties who feel that the current arrangements suit them in some regards because that is their parties’ position at the moment. However, in addition to what has already been said about ensuring that there is proper scrutiny and that the Assembly should be able to tell the public that all matters are being properly considered, I caution those members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP who feel that these arrangements suit them to take a more long-term view.
At the moment the First Minister (Designate) is a member of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) is a member of the SDLP. However, no one can guarantee that that will be the position in the future, and that is not to draw any conclusions about future events. If any Member can tell me precisely how everything is going to go over the next five to ten years, I will let him complete my lottery ticket on Saturday.
The reality is that none of us can foretell the future, and any party, whether it be Unionist, Nationalist, Conservative or Labour, that assumes that it will always be the largest party in any bloc is taking a very arrogant view of its electorate, and parties that do that can head for a fall. We should look at the situation in which one or other of the main parties was not the largest party. If the Ulster Unionist Party turns out not to be the largest party in the future, and this goes for the SDLP as well, it will be extremely difficult for either party then to say that there should be a proper scrutiny committee for the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Power will then have passed to another party.
I caution Members to look at the long-term objective. We have to be fair in order to ensure that we do have proper accountable democracy. There has to be proper scrutiny of the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers, whether it comes about by means of this amendment, which is the best one available at the moment, or whether it comes about by means of other proposals which will come forward via the Committee on Standing Orders. We must not have the black hole of an unaccountable Government.

Mr Mark Durkan: Much has been made of the need for scrutiny of the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers at the Centre.

Mr Jim Wells: I find it very suspicious that all the lieutenants have been dragooned into supporting the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). Are we going to hear the views of any of the Ulster Unionist or SDLP Back-Benchers? Why is it that we only hear from the "Yes" men in both camps?

Mr Mark Durkan: Thank you, Jim. This is the first occasion on which I have actually sat on the Front Bench, and not on the basis of being a "Yes" man — that is not a precondition for my getting here. I prefer to sit on the Back Benches. As everyone knows, that is where I always sit in the Chamber.
Let me address the issues raised. Is there a need for scrutiny? Yes. There is no doubt or argument about that. All Members supported amendment 27 which provides that any Member of the Executive Committee — not a departmental Minister — responsible for a matter which is the subject of an Adjournment debate shall respond to it. That will include the First and Deputy First Ministers. If we were minded to say that everything that was done by the First and Deputy First Ministers was entirely up to them and not subject to any reference to this House, we would be opposing that amendment.
Standing Orders also provide for weekly question times. The balance of those question times is obviously something which we are going to have to look at and determine. One would think that very regular and significant scrutiny, and questioning, of the First and Deputy First Ministers will form part of that.

Mr Peter Robinson: I suggest that the Member should not speak too loudly about his desire to remain on the Back Benches; it might be the wrong time to do so.
He identifies one mechanism, and there are many within Standing Orders, which would allow scrutiny of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the House. But is that a satisfactory way of doing it? It is a most untidy way. It would be far better to have it all contained within a committee.

Mr Mark Durkan: If the Member would allow me to continue, I have been generous in giving way so far.
That is one area. The allegation has been made that we have been trying to keep the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister immune from any check, any scrutiny, any accountability. I am simply pointing out that that is not so.
Secondly, with regard to functions remitted to the First and Deputy First Ministers, most of what they do relates to the particular operating needs of the Executive Committee and those requirements that arise specifically from the Committee. Any other function will be discharged on the basis of approval of the House. That should be remembered and recognised.
Thirdly, an argument has been made that all sorts of functions have been "hoovered" to the Centre. However, when one looks at those functions, they are seen to be the normal functions of the Centre. If one tries to identify the functions that have come from existing Government Departments, one finds that only a handful are currently remitted to specific Departments. The case has been made that all sorts of things were brought in, but one would be very hard pushed to find more than a handful of functions that have been taken from particular Departments into the Centre.
One is the issue of equality, which is currently discharged by the Department of Economic Development. We have already seen legislation passed elsewhere that gives much wider terms of reference and application than could ever have been covered by that Department. The idea of equality now encompasses more than employment and the provision of goods and services. It would have been wrong in those circumstances to have allowed the issue of equality to remain with the Department of Economic Development or its equivalent.
Similarly, community relations came under the Department of Education where it did not fare too well in the eyes of many people working in that area. That Department has now been broken up and reorganised, and no strong argument can be made for that function remaining there. It should move to the Centre.
Public appointments policy is another area which properly lies in the Centre and, indeed, was there previously. Most of the functions that lie with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister relate to the requirements of the Centre and of the Executive Committee. We argued in the negotiations for and stand by the concept of the Executive Committee as an inclusive exercise. We want it to be inclusive on a proportional basis. We want the Executive Committee to work as a committee. We want it to be a live and significant entity. That was the difference between many of the parties during the talks.
We argued very strongly for a significant Executive Committee. The circumstances of the negotiations required that part of the compromise was that particular functions and responsibilities for the co-ordination and operation of the Executive Committee be discharged by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Thus in that sense they are accountable to the Executive Committee and through the Committee to this House.
If we were to say that there has to be a specific scrutiny committee for the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, that would be grand. That would make it very easy for those parties who say "We will take ministerial office but not sit on the Executive Committee. We will send our people to the scrutiny committee to try to kick the traces through every matter that is before or is coming before the Executive Committee."

A Member: Who?

Mr Mark Durkan: Yes, who would do that? I just wonder.
I cannot believe that I am the first to suggest that any such thoughts are creeping into the minds of any of the Members in that corner, but that is precisely what this scrutiny committee would be used for. Those parties that were not content with being able to scrutinise the business of the North/South Ministerial Council through the relevant departmental Ministers could use it to undertake a wholesale challenging exercise. It could be used, for instance, to frisk the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on details concerning the Civic Forum. That would be an abuse of such a scrutiny committee.
We have agreed the necessity for particular functions to come within the remit of the Centre and that they be subject to dedicated scrutiny committees. For example, we have already agreed that that is what must happen with the issue of equality, and when we talk about a scrutiny committee on equality, we mean one that is additional to the special committee on conformity with equality requirements referred to in the Standing Orders. That is a separate procedural device provided for in the agreement that allows for equality readings for measures that are before the House. So we are talking about there being two different committees in respect of equality issues, not none as some seem to be suggesting.
There are other issues — the Public Service Office, for instance — that rest with the Centre. The scope of that office, which will be encompassed within the Economic Policy Unit, may also be a very suitable function for a scrutiny committee to address.
Many of those functions are being placed at the Centre, not so that they will be with DavidTrimble and SeamusMallon but because the Centre, rather than a specific department, is the appropriate place for them.
That does not mean that the ministerial responsibility for those functions cannot be discharged by other Ministers. The Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 specifically provides for the fact that a Minister, including the First and Deputy First Ministers, can delegate authority in respect of certain functions to another Minister or junior Minister — functions in relation to women’s issues, for instance. There is nothing to prevent the First and Deputy First Ministers designating another member of the Executive Committee to be responsible for women’s issues.
Under The Departments (NorthernIreland) Order 1999, it can be done. The allegation has been made that all these issues are left with SeamusMallon and David Trimble alone, but that is not the case. Junior Ministers can be appointed, and there is nothing stopping the First and Deputy First Ministers appointing other Ministers to discharge certain discrete elements of these functions. In that case, the idea of one scrutiny committee dealing with, potentially, a number of Ministers simply would not stand up. This deserves further and deeper consideration than the amendment allows.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Mr Durkan did his chances of being promoted permanently to the Front Bench a power of good with that speech in support of his Deputy First Minister. I am glad to follow him and MrWeir also, who forecast the future in a very interesting fashion.
However, he makes the point — the serious point — that we are setting the permanent Standing Orders for this Assembly and we want to get them right, no matter which party they may apply to. When MrRobinson introduced the debate, he said that in many cases Standing Orders can be used for a party and against a party, and we do not know what circumstances may prevail on any given day.
We want to try to draw up Standing Orders that are in the best interests of individual Members, and I think that this whole issue of scrutiny goes to the very heart of the Assembly’s work. Many of today’s speeches were all for scrutiny. In his speech, MrDurkan was saying "yes" to scrutiny, but the rest of it seemed to be a list of arguments as to why, at this stage, we should not proceed to set up a scrutiny committee.
Reference was made to the fact that as a result of the amendment which was agreed yesterday, Ministers can and will be called before Adjournment debates and will be asked to give answers. However, that is no substitute, in any shape or form, for having a scrutiny committee; all a Minister will do in a 10-minute speech will be to answer the points raised. Members need to be able to call them or not, as the case may be. They need to have the opportunity to call for papers, to examine in detail what Ministers are doing, and that includes the First and Deputy First Ministers.
I was surprised to hear MrMcFarland and MrHaughey suggest that we should leave this to allow for consultation with the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). This issue has been kicking around for some time. On 11February, it was raised in the committee, and it was raised again on 19February when the joint Chairmen undertook to discuss it then with the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). On 26February, it was reported that it had not been possible to arrange a meeting with the First Minister (Designate), but that some discussion had taken place with the Deputy First Minister (Designate). He had agreed that there was a problem and said that his officials would look at it.
To date we have had no comeback from the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and no further comeback from the Office of the Deputy First Minister (Designate). We have now reached 9March — one month on — and this is an issue which is extremely important to the workings of this Assembly. Almost all-party concern was raised about it at the committee meetings. Some Members are understandably reluctant to have this issue taken back to the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate), the ones most affected, or to wait for a committee on procedures to deal with it.
I am concerned by Mr Ervine’s suggestion that we should await legislation. It is true to say that when the Government wish to do so, they can rush legislation through very quickly, but there are other occasions when they do not wish to move so quickly, and in these instances it can be very difficult to find a slot in the timetable.
We have been given to understand that this legislation has been gone through with a fine-tooth comb by MrTrimble’s party and by MrHume’s party, so we are understandably suspicious about how the problem arose in the first place. It cannot be by pure accident that we have been left with this problem, with the fundamental job of scrutinising the Executive functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers being messed up in this way and with no proper legislative base to enable us to set up a statutory committee to deal with the matter.
I do not believe that this was an omission or a mistake. I do not believe that parliamentary draftsmen would be guilty of this kind of mistake had they been correctly guided. We need to try to fill this gap and not simply leave it in the hope that in due course things will be put right. We have the opportunity now to try to do something. Perhaps this is a stop-gap measure, but it is better than having nothing at all in place. This is what Members need to consider.
I was staggered at the attitude of SinnFéin. It was vehement on this issue in the committee but today one of its members said that she did not wish to support the amendment. The amendment states that a committee, such as the one proposed by MrRobinson, shall exercise the same powers and perform the same functions as a Statutory Committee. Sinn Féin’s attitude is that we should wait until we get a Statutory Committee.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Member agree that it is even more strange that SinnFéin, which had called for a separate equality committee, a function now of the Department of the First and Deputy First Ministers, is suddenly content that that Department, with its equality role, should not be scrutinised at all?

Mr Nigel Dodds: The Member’s point is a good one. It exposes the hypocrisy of some Members who have said that they intend to vote against this proposal which would ensure that there was scrutiny from day one of the range of functions in the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

Mr Barry McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Mr Jim Wells: Will the Member give way?

Mr Nigel Dodds: No, I will not. Oh, I am sorry. I did not know where the request was coming from. I am always happy to give way, but not to members of SinnFéin/IRA.

Mr Jim Wells: Is it not also strange that in the six meetings of the Standing Orders Committee that I attended, the Sinn Féin representatives fought this issue tooth and nail and raised it constantly? They said that they were going to table an amendment at this stage calling for a scrutiny committee to deal with the powers controlled centrally by the First and the Deputy First Ministers. Why have they changed their minds?

Mr Nigel Dodds: I thank the hon Member for that intervention.
I want to deal with the issue that MrMcFarland raised. He said that some functions had been taken into the Offices of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister after the Act had been published. This is precisely the point. It is even more suspicious that this should have happened after the Act was published. The Departments (NorthernIreland) Order1999, in article8, paragraph 1, makes it clear that
"The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, may by order —
(a) assign to any Department; or
(b) transfer to any Department from any other Department,
such functions that appear to them to be appropriate for such assignment or transfer."
The reality is that even the functions that have been assigned to Departments at present can be taken out of those Departments by order of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and taken into their Offices. It would be quite wrong to have this power residing in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister without having, from day one, the scrutiny mechanisms set up and in place. Junior Ministers who may be appointed can be in those Offices as well, and their responsibilities will not be subject to scrutiny either.
It is essential that we do something about this. It would be incomprehensible to argue, on the one hand, that we agree there should be scrutiny and, on the other, that we do not want it yet. Let us have scrutiny from day one and when the Committee on Procedures is set up it can look at it again to see if improvements and changes need to be made. Why leave a vacuum? Why have a situation where every other Minister is subject to proper Statutory Committee scrutiny except the First Minister and Deputy First Minister?
It is simply illogical to say "We believe in scrutiny, it is so important, it is vital, but we are going to have a gap, wait for legislation, wait for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to come back to us on this — if they ever do — and then act." Why not act now? Why not put in place arrangements which will kick the issue off and allow us to get down to work as soon as there is some sort of devolved Administration and when the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister start to exercise these powers?

Lord Alderdice: There are still several Members on both sides of the argument who wish to speak, followed by the votes. I seek leave of the Assembly to suspend the sitting until 2.00pm.
The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 12.33pm until 2.01 pm.

Mr Joe Byrne: Mr P Robinson’s proposed amendment is timely. I welcome debate on the issue of a scrutiny committee of the Assembly to advise, assist and possibly to moderate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the discharge of their Executive functions. The House must examine how the Government are to operate and take decisions given the individual and collective views of the Members.
The statutory departmental committees will be a vital element of our new political structures, critical to the success of the Assembly. The all-party committees in particular will give Back-Benchers a positive, constructive and meaningful role in policy formulation and in examining the performance of Ministers. They will provide for a more inclusive and collective Assembly view of the discharge of each Department’s functions on behalf of the people.
The Executive Committee, comprising the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the 10departmental Ministers, will be, in effect, a four-party body made up of the Ulster Unionist Party, the DUP, Sinn Féin and ourselves. Surely this Executive Committee will have to function in a collective way. Surely the DUP Ministers, or the Sinn Féin Ministers, or indeed any other Ministers, will argue a strong case in that committee to make sure that fair and equitable decisions are taken.
If they do not question the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and make them think seriously about the consequences of any initiatives they take, we will have a major problem even before we get this new political vehicle on the road. I have every confidence that the Executive Committee will function effectively, without the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister having to contend with a specific, statutory committee of the House. The collective decisions of the Executive Committee could be torpedoed by a statutory scrutiny committee of the Centre, and that would be dangerous and troublesome.
A Minister could argue his case through his departmental committee, and then through the Executive Committee, and have his proposal accepted as Government policy.
However, the committee to scrutinise the work of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could then decide to tackle the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister and disable the whole policy decision. At best this could be cumbersome and awkward, but I am afraid that it could be very destructive to the Government’s performance. I firmly believe that a scrutiny committee as proposed by MrRobinson could end up strangling the effective operation of the entire Executive Committee’s decisions.
We all know that individual Ministers must act in the best interests of agreed Government policy, made, in our case, by way of collective decision making. It would be farcical if Back-Benchers on a scrutiny committee of the Centre tried to overturn the Government’s collective decision through a strong challenge to and decision against the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. I understand the sentiments of those who would like to see a specialist scrutiny committee, but as we embark upon setting up these new structures it would be stupid to strangle the effective operation of the new Government that we are trying to establish.
I know that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have been given certain functions at the Centre, but some of those, as was said earlier by my Colleague, could eventually be directed to some other Ministers. Some Ministers, for example, could be charged with the responsibility of looking after women’s affairs. I am quite confident that within the departmental committees there will be strong and effective discussion, but the vital committee for the overall functioning of the Government will be the Executive Committee.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have to act in co-ordination and reflect the collective decisions of the Executive Committee. Every Minister in that Committee will argue the case strongly, and I hope that a collective decision will be made. If we impose another committee purely to examine the functions and deliberations of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, we could make this whole operation unworkable.

Mr David Ervine: I have some disquiet about this and hope that the Member will share it. I thank him for giving way.
I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee. There was a serious debate on this issue in the Standing Orders Committee. We spoke for a long time about a formula of words that could be incorporated in the Standing Orders showing Members that, because of the legislation, there is a gap in our provision. It is not there, and one wonders why it is not there, given that it was agreed by the members after long deliberation that a formula of words would be found and incorporated. That lends people to the belief that there may be those who do not want full scrutiny of the First and Deputy First Ministers’ Offices.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the Member for his intervention. I was not a member of the Standing Orders Committee so I cannot answer for what took place or did not take place there. I am looking at this from the outside, as a Back-Bencher. Many commentators, conscious that we are setting up a smooth functioning Government — and this is a completely new experiment — keep asking me and others if this new system will work. I keep saying to them that it will work.
However, it is a new model of government that we are setting up here with a new way of taking decisions. It is an all-party system of government. Let us not shackle the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister at the outset. I feel confident that there are enough checks and balances with the statutory committees at the moment to make sure that nobody will over-exercise his executive responsibilities.

Mr Denis Haughey: With regard to the point that my Colleague is developing and Mr Ervine’s intervention, may I point out that I chaired the last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee, and we agreed in precise terms the wording of paragraph 7:
"Concern was expressed by the Committee that important discrete executive functions of the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister would not, under current legislation, be subject to the scrutiny of a Statutory Committee. The Committee recommends that this matter be addressed as soon as possible by the Assembly".

Mr Joe Byrne: I am grateful for the clarification. This is a good debate about this issue, and I thank MrRobinson for bringing forward many of these amendments.
This one, however, is in danger of suffering from an acute case of "Committeeitis". My worry is that were we to set up this committee, we could shackle the discharge of duties at the Centre.
The Economic Policy Unit (EPU), which is at the Centre, has no statutory function as laid out in the report of the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). Essentially it has a servicing role in relation to its work as part of the Executive Committee. Indeed, the Executive Committee itself will, I am sure, have to carry out a critical examination and formulate an effective role for the EPU once the Executive is up and running.

Lord Alderdice: Please bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Joe Byrne: Yes. Thank you.

Mr Patrick Roche: I support amendment 59. MrClose referred to the sentiments expressed by MrRobinson. In fact, MrRobinson put forward very powerful and compelling arguments for a committee to scrutinise the core — the most powerful part of the Executive — and that is the Department of the First and Deputy First Ministers.
In the absence of any normal Opposition in the Assembly, it seems to me that that form of scrutiny is crucial. That was the point made by MrWeir, and the only reservations I have about what I now accept as MrWeir’s very sound judgement on most matters under discussion in the Assembly is that he seemed to be designating the Alliance Party as the nearest thing to an Opposition that we have. The problem with the Alliance Party is that since it is absolutely impossible to determine what it is either for or against, it is difficult to see how it could fill that role. If I had to speak —

Mr Seamus Close: Will the Member give way?

Mr Patrick Roche: Yes.

Mr Seamus Close: Would he like to tell Members where he has been for the past 24 months?

Mr Patrick Roche: Another important consideration in respect of the type of committee suggested by this amendment is that it could remedy what I described yesterday as a fault line between the Assembly and the all-Ireland aspects of the agreement. This committee could help to give the Assembly some real influence over decision making within the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers in relation to the all-Ireland aspects of their policy.
Mr Durkan commented on that point, but it struck me that his speech consisted of comments that were entirely irrelevant to the issue. He spent a considerable amount of time outlining why the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers have the functions they have, which is not what we are discussing. We are discussing how, given that they have those functions, the Assembly can carry out an adequate scrutiny.
He expressed something that is crucial to his position, that within this scrutiny committee, there could emerge some real opposition to the all-Ireland aspects of the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers.
Given that he wants to prevent that opposition from emerging, and that the facility for that type of opposition and the scrutiny that would be involved is crucial to any authentically democratic Assembly; the trade-off is to try to minimise the democratic aspects of the Assembly in order to maximise the all-Ireland aspects.

Dr Sean Farren: Is the Member saying that he might want to use the sort of scrutiny committee that is proposed to inhibit the exercise of the functions of the North/South Ministerial Council, irrespective of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people on this island, North and South, endorsed the co-operation between both parts of the country that was envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement?

Mr Patrick Roche: They have not endorsed the detail of the working out of the agreement. The scrutiny committee would simply scrutinise, and it could cut two ways. It would enable the Assembly to exercise a real influence over the policies that were being pursued by the Department of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I should stress that MrDurkan’s proposal was an attempt to minimise the Assembly’s democratic aspect in order to maximise the Nationalist thrust of the Department in question.
There is some political timidity by the Assembly with regard to the scrutiny committee. Members’ reservations about the scrutiny committee are based on the failure to distinguish between what an Act requires and what it permits. In the initial stages of establishing the authority of the Assembly, we should use what legislation permits to maximise the status of the Assembly in relation to the Executive.
MrFarren made the amazing suggestion that Members should not only wait until the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had time to consider the matter, which implies allowing them to make the decision for us, but that we should trust them to ensure full accountability. That is not the role of the Assembly. The Assembly should maximise its authority in relation to the Executive. Now is the time to do that. We should not rely entirely upon the Executive somehow to police itself, which, I think, is what MrByrne was saying. Members have an opportunity to establish the full authority of the Assembly in relation to the Executive, and the means of achieving that is contained in amendment No59.

Mr Roy Beggs: I listened to the comments by JimWells before lunch. I am a Back-Bencher, and the only other person to speak from the Back Benches on this issue was also a member of the Ulster Unionist Party. I assure the Member and my electorate that I am able to assess issues for myself and wish to ensure that I can carry out the necessary, responsible scrutiny as a Back-Bencher.
I agree that there is a need for scrutiny of the centre. Originally, there were very limited statutory functions at the Centre, and according to the Act, there would have been no need for scrutiny of the Department of the Centre. However several additional functions have been transferred to the Centre, and there is a clear need for scrutiny of those functions.
On a wider issue, I wish to highlight the need for more frequent periods to be set aside for questioning of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Once every three or four weeks, as currently envisaged, is not sufficient.
Amendment No59 does not propose particular scrutiny; it is much wider than that. There are no boundaries to its scrutiny. TonyBlair, my Prime Minister, does not have a committee scrutinising his every action. A scrutiny committee is needed, but it should have clear guidance on the areas of its operation. The issue of scrutiny of the Centre should go back to the Standing Orders Committee so that a new amendment may be prepared for our consideration.

Rev William McCrea: This issue is not one that divides the Assembly into the "Yes" and "No" camps. This is not about that at all. There are those who have opinions, conscientiously and with conviction, about the agreement. Our genuinely held views about the matter under discussion differ from the views of those who hold the same opinion as we do about the agreement. They differ from us on the matter of scrutiny of the Offices of the First and the Deputy First Ministers.
The heart and crux of the matter is open and accountable government. It never ceases to amaze me how the foot soldiers of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP have been shuffling around, even squirming at times, with the Front Bench having to help some of its Members through their difficulties when any awkward question is asked. They faithfully try to save the faces of their First and Deputy First Ministers, and many do not believe what they are saying. Many of them in their heart of hearts believe in open Government, so how can they honestly say that they are trying to ensure that this is what we are getting?
Some Members have said that this will strangle the effective operation of the First and the Deputy First Ministers. The Member from West Tyrone came out with that sort of weak statement — he did not say it with conviction. If he is saying that scrutiny will shackle the First and the Deputy First Ministers, and that that should not be, should we then have shackles upon the other Ministers? Should we have shackles upon the Minister for Agriculture? Should we have shackles upon the Minister dealing with education? Or is it only certain individuals who are lacking in confidence or conviction that should not be scrutinised? That is a very weak argument, and, as the hon Member for North Down pointed out, many could find that the positions that they are trying to hold today are ones which they will want to change in a short period of time.

Mr Peter Robinson: The Member for West Tyrone is speaking against the agreement that he heralds as the best thing that we have had since tatie bread. The agreement, as MrErvine pointed out earlier on, clearly requires scrutiny of every function of the Government, so he is not only attempting, rather lamely, to prop up the First and Deputy First Ministers, but, in doing so, he is railing against the agreement that he supports.

Rev William McCrea: I agree with my hon Friend. There is embarrassment — you have only to look at some of the faces to see it — because they have not a leg to stand on. They genuinely do not believe in what they are saying.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: On a point of order, MrPresiding Officer. Is it in order for MrMcCrea to make these points without naming names? Name the names.

Lord Alderdice: I think the Member in speaking is giving evidence of that already.

Rev William McCrea: I do understand the hon Member’s lack of experience in parliamentary procedure.
Every Member from the Ulster Unionist Party who has spoken, bar MrWeir, and every Member from the SDLP who has spoken, has spoken with embarrassment.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I know that the Member was in full flight there. Does he accept that there are Members, and maybe DrMcDonnell is one such on the SDLP side of the House, who are incapable of embarrassment? Maybe that is why he feels that MrMcCrea was wrongly accusing him.

Rev William McCrea: I will not attribute that to the hon Member at all. The SDLP Members and certainly the Ulster Unionist Members have not spoken with conviction. They have spoken like sheep, totally devoid of conviction. They have not presented their case well, and it appears that they really do not believe what they say. They have to save the faces of the First and the Deputy First Ministers who are unwilling to grace the Assembly with their presence. They feel strongly about this issue, yet they cannot come and present their views to the Assembly.
The Member from East Antrim, who has now disappeared, said "TonyBlair is not subject to scrutiny, so why should MrTrimble and MrMallon be?"
What Department does TonyBlair run? Is he the Minister of Education? He is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and we are not, therefore, comparing like with like. Do not bring false arguments into this. Let us face the issues as they really are.
Mr Farren talked about a gap in the position — there is gaping hole here. He knows what the legislation and the Standing Orders are devoid of. He is suggesting that we ask the First and the Deputy First Ministers to go away and then come back and tell us how they would like to be scrutinised, but he does not want us to put too much pressure on them or ask difficult questions that they might not have an answer to. I have never heard of anything so ludicrous in a debating chamber.
Then the Members on the Front Benches are attempting to justify — [Interruption]

Dr Sean Farren: Will the Member give way?

Rev William McCrea: The hon Member has already spoken, and he made a mess of that. He should not attempt to justify that which is unjustifiable.
It does not matter whether people said "Yes" or "No" in the referendum, and those who are attempting to bring the referendum into this are trying to create a division that is not here. We are talking about open and accountable Government.
The real gem from the debate has come from IRA/Sinn Féin. It does not agree with the amendment by my hon Friend, MrRobinson. It wants to do away with the scrutiny committee that would help with women’s rights and help other individuals who believe that they need assistance. I am amazed at the rationale behind such thinking. Nevertheless, I suppose muddled minds can only come up with muddled suggestions.
This is something that should not be divisive. Here is an opportunity for the open and accountable government that the people of Ulster expect and have a right to. This amendment would certainly help to bring that about.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Many of the points have already been covered well. I asked to speak because, having listened to the last two speeches from those who oppose the amendment, I was bewildered by one and amused by the other.
I was bewildered by the speech from a member of the SDLP. The more he spoke, the more he seemed to be taking a position which was totally contrary to the position which was adopted in the committee by his party, by the co-Chairman from his party and, indeed, by other Members. This afternoon is the first time that I have actually heard anyone oppose the idea of scrutiny of the First and the Deputy First Ministers’Offices.
We heard people making excuses this morning, along the lines that we should have scrutiny but not now, or not until we have had time to think about how it should be done, or not until after we have asked the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) how they would like their work to be scrutinised. Those are the arguments which we heard this morning. This afternoon, having had a little chat over a good lunch with the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), they are now questioning the whole concept of scrutiny of the Offices of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Those of us who wish to see such proper scrutiny are now being told that to do so would gum up the whole process of government. That is what the Member said, and that is totally contrary to what we heard this morning. No one spoke then of gumming the process up; it was simply a case of trying to find the best mechanism. We are told now that the effect of setting up structures to scrutinise the work of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would be to gum up the process of government, but it has not been explained why this should be so.
I find it strange that anyone should suggest that there is no merit in having proper structures for scrutiny, given the amount of power which the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) have assumed.
I see that MrBeggs has left the Chamber again. That is a pity, as I wanted to address some of the points he made. I appreciate MrBeggs’s position within the Ulster Unionist Party. He is regarded as a bit of rebel; he has given MrTrimble some headaches. Indeed, I understand that MrTrimble has had to sit down and produce written assurances for him. Nonetheless, he is going a bit far in ingratiating himself with his party Leader by defending him over an issue on which his position is indefensible. One of the points made by MrTrimble, in defence of his decision to sign the agreement, was that
"This agreement will allow us to have accountable government in Northern Ireland."
Yet, we see members of his party defending the idea that the First Minister should control a Department which would not be subject to scrutiny by the Assembly. I would have thought that if you were trying to wheedle your way back into the party fold, as MrBeggs is trying to do, you could have chosen a better issue upon which to make a stand than this.
RevWilliamMcCrea has already addressed the point made by MrBeggs that the Prime Minister is not subject to scrutiny, and he pointed out that the Prime Minister does not have a Department. Between the presentation of their first report and their second report, the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) doubled the extent of their remit.
Let us look at the areas that will not be subject to scrutiny — the economic policy unit and equality. At one stage, Sinn Féin was so exercised about the issue of equality that it was demanding a completely separate Department, including a Minister and a scrutiny committee. Now it has no Department, no scrutiny committee, yet it is going to vote against this amendment. We should ask ourselves what the real motives of the pro-agreement parties are.
We must look at the areas that are now not going to be subject to scrutiny. They include the Economic Policy Unit, equality, liaison with the North/South Ministerial Council, liaison with the British/Irish Council, liaison with the Civic Forum, liaison with the Secretary of State on reserved and excepted matters, European affairs and international matters, the Policy Innovation Unit, Information Services and community relations. There will be no scrutiny in any of these areas, and that is only half the list — I cannot remember the other ones.
All those areas of the Government are not going to be scrutinised properly, yet the First Minister stood on an electoral platform saying that he was all for accountable Government. Now he, his party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin are all saying that they do not want that part of the Government to be accountable to the House.
I find that very strange. This morning’s excuses have been scraped away, and Back-Bench Members from both the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP are saying—

Rev William McCrea: I thank my hon Friend for giving way. When matters arise within the remit of the First and Deputy First Ministers which affect constituents, and the constituents believe that the issues have been wrongly dealt with, how will these Members justify the lack of scrutiny to their constituents?

Mr Sammy Wilson: They will have no defence, and they have already admitted in the committee that it is important that they should have a scrutiny role. But now, between the meetings of the committee and today’s Assembly meeting, something has changed. Who has nobbled them?

Mr Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He has referred to the committee. Is it his memory as it is mine that members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP were in favour at one stage of the Assembly’s meeting twice a month, thus indicating the importance, or lack of it, that they thought the Assembly had to the activities of the Executive?

Mr Sammy Wilson: That is quite right, and their emphasis at that stage was that the work would be done through the scrutiny committees, but there will be no committee to scrutinise the work of the First and the Deputy First Ministers.
I have no doubt that this vote will be taken strictly on party-political lines. But, as was pointed out by MrMcCartney this morning, if Members were to vote on this amendment from the point of view of giving sound and accountable government rather than pleasing the party Whips and ingratiating themselves with the party Leader, I have no doubt that this amendment would be carried.

Lord Alderdice: I sense that most of the arguments for or against this amendment have been made, and I am therefore only going to take the two Members whose names remain on the list.

Mr Alex Attwood: Before getting into the detail of the debate, there is a broader point which needs to be made. Members are discussing scrutiny mechanisms for the Chamber and the Government, but one of the issues which the Assembly will ultimately have to address is "the people’s scrutiny mechanism". That will require a Freedom of Information Act to enable the people whom Members are elected to serve to have their own methods of scrutinising the work of the Assembly, the work of all the other institutions of Government in the North, and the work of the public service generally.
I find some DUP comments rather superficial. If Members thought more broadly for a minute they would realise that the pro-agreement parties, which created the Good Friday Agreement, and the pro-agreement community, which endorsed the agreement, endorsed, among other things, the building into the political society that we are creating of fundamental scrutiny mechanisms. I am referring to the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.
It is somewhat superficial and obvious to criticise people who have a different view on how that scrutiny is carried out. Those same people struggled over many weeks and months to create an agreement which included scrutiny mechanisms for equality, policy, practice and human rights generally in the North.
That is the starting point for all the pro-agreement parties on the scrutiny of Government, human rights practices and equality issues. The anti-agreement parties were hostile to the agreement and those specific proposals, and it is somewhat obvious, cheap and superficial now to criticise us when we speak about scrutinising mechanisms.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the Member not appreciate that the commissions to which he refers, will be scrutinising policy after it has been made, and that the purpose of a scrutiny committee would be to scrutinise those who are making the policy that those commissions would subsequently deal with?

Mr Alex Attwood: With all due respect to MrMcCartney, his intervention reveals that he does not understand that the Human Rights Commission has the power to review draft legislation and not just that which comes from the Chamber and the House of Commons. In that regard the role of the Human Rights Commission is above that of the Assembly and the Commons in terms of legislation which affects the quality of life in the North. MrMcCartney should read the powers of the Human Rights Commission and come back to me when he has done so.
To some degree, Members miss the point. While we are discussing how we will scrutinise Government, which is a very proper objective, the Civil Service, that other government in the North, is not subject to scrutiny in relation to fundamental decisions that will affect the quality of people’s lives over the next four to five years.
The Northern Ireland Civil Service is currently conducting a so-called consultation exercise in relation to the next tranche of structural funds, and that so-called consultation is not subject to public or political scrutiny or to any meaningful public or political input. As I have said before, if we are not mindful, the victory that we won in the GoodFriday Agreement will be reclaimed by the old men who will remodel it in the image of the old order that they knew and loved. They are doing that at present in many ways, not least in respect of future European structural funds in the North of Ireland.
I have three points about the debate. First, in an interjection on his Colleague MrWilson, MrPRobinson correctly invoked the Good Friday Agreement when he correctly said that it requires the scrutiny of all functions of government. He somehow translated that into meaning a scrutiny committee in the terms of his amendment. There is no mention in the Good Friday Agreement of the word scrutiny meaning a scrutiny committee. It is mischievous and misleading to suggest, as MrRobinson suggested to his Colleague MrWilson—

Mr Peter Robinson: It was MrMcCrea.

Mr Alex Attwood: Whoever it was, the point remains the same. Scrutiny is for us to determine: it is not prescriptive in the agreement.

Mr Seamus Close: Which of the powers that are described in, I think, paragraph 9 of the Good Friday Agreement which outlines the scrutiny powers of the committee, does he not wish to apply to the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers?

Mr Alex Attwood: No one denies the principle of scrutiny. We are debating the method. As those who oppose the amendment have said in substantial detail, in addition to the use of existing mechanisms, which were detailed earlier by MrDurkan, the matter can be revised and reviewed to ensure that legitimate concerns can be legitimately expressed. It is incorrect to translate the agreement’s use of the word scrutiny into scrutiny committee.
The second point is that a scrutiny committee, which would deal more substantially with the matter, should act as both sword and shield. It should fulfil both purposes. As a sword it should result in the exposure [Interruption]
2.45 pm

Lord Alderdice: Order. I draw to Members’ attention that it is usually accepted that when a Member is named and his views expressed through the mouth of the Member who is speaking, some opportunity ought to be given for that Member to respond. I have already made it clear that I have taken all the speeches that I am prepared to take on this matter, and in any case, MrRobinson is not entitled to speak again because he has spoken already. Therefore I draw to the Member’s attention that in the balance of his time — and we are, at present, on a point of order, so no time is being used — he might wish to take that into consideration.

Mr Alex Attwood: I will honour that interpretation and give way to the Member.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am very grateful to MrAttwood for giving way. I simply want to put on record that he is completely wrong in his remarks. Paragraph 8 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement says
"There will be a Committee" —
Committee, specifically —
"for each of the main executive functions of the NorthernIreland Administration."
Is he arguing that equality is not a main function? Is he arguing that the Economic Policy Unit is not a main function? The agreement continues
"Committees will have a scrutiny … role."

Mr Alex Attwood: No one is denying what the agreement says. But what [Interruption]. If you want to listen, listen; if you want to jeer, go somewhere else.
The full interpretation of that and its operation in practice is the subject of this debate. What concerns people, I suggest, is that there is a motivation in some of the comments that might have given rise to the conclusion that people wish to use the scrutiny committee more as a sword — or only as a sword and not a shield. It is an attempt to cause damage rather than expose the truth and ensure accountable Government.
There is a requirement that the principle of scrutiny and the operation of the scrutiny committee should not end up being abused, misused or being used in some way to frustrate the proper and necessary functions of Government [Interruption]. Excuse me if some people have doubts about some people’s motivation when it comes to what they mean, what they intend and what they say. Having heard what the people opposed to the amendment have said, I think that there is, within that amendment, an adequate opportunity to ensure that people’s concerns will be answered, and answered fully in due course.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I want to make one or two comments. I am absolutely astounded at some of the arguments that have been put forward here today, in particular by those who are the greatest exponents of the Belfast Agreement.
I listened with interest to the comments of those who were most vociferous in their support of the agreement. When the Unionist side of the equation was going round the streets selling the agreement, one of the arguments that they kept putting forward was that, at long last, transparent Government was going to be part and parcel of Northern Ireland’s future, but it is interesting to note that the two largest parties within this Assembly, who were the greatest advocates of it, want to put a shield around the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for reasons best known to themselves. In all their arguments they have not been convincing as to why they want to do this, but even more puzzling, I think, is the stance that SinnFéin has taken. MichelleGildernew read out a speech. Obviously someone had written it for her, and she did not read it before she came in, because she started off on one trend — [Interruption]
I am coming to it now. And then she contradicted herself.

Lord Alderdice: Order. I have pointed out that I expect courtesy to be extended to all Members and that they should be given their title. It is only fair that this is also done in respect of MsGildernew.

Mr Maurice Morrow: What I was saying was to her credit. I thought she could have done even better if she had written it herself, but I take your point.
Yesterday evening in my council —

Ms Michelle Gildernew: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Mr Morrow, thank you for your kind comments on my ability but I have to disagree with you. I was making very relevant points in my speech and did not contradict myself.

Lord Alderdice: Again I would like to encourage Members to speak through the Chair; it helps to ensure the propriety of debate.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Yesterday evening, when members of Dungannon Council were discussing how we wanted to call in and question the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services in relation to the pending rundown of acute services in the South Tyrone hospital, it was interesting to hear one of the Sinn Féin members saying "These Ministers come over here and nobody — but nobody — can scrutinise anything they do. They just act as dictators." What is happening in this Assembly today? We are now in the same situation where we are placing the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the very same, unique position — and it is an enviable position. They will be able to carry out functions and nobody — but nobody — in this Assembly will have any right whatsoever to cross-examine them on any matter that they —

Dr Esmond Birnie: Will the hon Member give way?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Yes.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not agree that the fundamental difference between Northern Ireland Office Ministers and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are answerable to the ultimate authority — the electorate in Northern Ireland — and, therefore, that his comparison is not relevant?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do not see the relevance of that, but sometime, in privacy perhaps, the Member will point it out to me.
But surely the Member has heard enough today to help him change his mind, to ensure that people like myself, and others who are a bit sceptical, will have no room for scepticism in the future. I assume, therefore, that he will be voting with us in a few minutes time.
I find the attitude of Members from the SDLP who claim to be all for transparency in every other avenue but not in this one very hypocritical.

Mr Denis Haughey: Does the Member not agree that I, along with other main spokesmen for the SDLP and, indeed, Mr Cobain, Mr McFarland and other main spokesmen for the UUP, have not taken the view that there should be no scrutiny of the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers? What we have said is that we do not accept that the amendment proposed here is the best way of going about this. It is a complicated matter; the agreement provides for such scrutiny, and the legislation does not. We need legal advice; we need to consult; we need to engage in dialogue about the matter and come up with a comprehensive proposal. Does the Member not agree that that is what I and other main spokespersons for our two parties have said?

Mr Maurice Morrow: In addressing that, perhaps I should give Mr Haughey an opportunity to repudiate the Members from his own group who said there should be no scrutiny, and if he wants me to give way so that he can do that, I will be quite prepared to do so. [Interruption]

Mr Denis Haughey: Thank you very much, Jim. The hon Member (Mr Wells) has encouraged me to get to my feet. I did not understand my Colleague the Member for West Tyrone (Mr Byrne) to say that there should be no scrutiny of the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers. What I understood him to say was that it was the intention, in his view, of the proposers of this amendment, to devise ways and means by which the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers might be shackled, that we had spotted it, that we were on to it and that we would not tolerate it.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Mr Haughey is being extravagant with words, but he is very weak on facts. When MrByrne was speaking what he was saying was evident to those of us on these Benches. Indeed, when MrMcCrea, I think it was, pointed to the Member and addressed him directly, MrByrne was observed dropping his head, and we detected it. [Interruption]

Mr Joe Byrne: It is wonderful to rise to the bait after three or four invitations. I am not against scrutiny of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I said that I do not think that a specific scrutiny committee for the Centre would be the most effective way to control them. It will be up to the Executive Committee to make sure that the First and Deputy First Ministers do not over-exercise their functions.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am not sure whether that is what MrHaughey said or alluded to, but I am delighted to hear that MrByrne has changed his mind on the issue. I look forward to having him vote with my party in a few minutes’ time when he will have the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the Member agree that the principle that was expressed by MrByrne is equivalent to the allegation that the RUC is responsible for its own internal investigation of the behaviour of its members? He is saying that the Executive should be responsible for the behaviour of the chief constable of the Executive and his deputy. Does he further agree that the amendment is phrased in almost exactly the same terms as the powers that are to be given to the other scrutiny committees? One can only wonder why refinement is required.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I thank MrMcCartney for putting those two points in such an excellent manner. Only someone with his experience and expertise could have put them so well. His point about the RUC is well made. The SDLP and Sinn Féin have asked on too many occasions "How can the police police themselves?" There is some logic in that.

Mr Denis Haughey: Can we take it that MrMorrow is now arguing for independent scrutiny of the police force?

Mr Maurice Morrow: In a few minutes, all Members will have an opportunity to vote with us for proper scrutiny. I have listened to the arguments, and I look forward to Members changing their minds.

Lord Alderdice: We come now to the approval of the Standing Orders and amendments in the first group, which relates to committees.
Standing Order 42 (Committees of the Assembly: General) agreed to.
Standing Order 43 (Statutory Committees) agreed to.
Standing Order 44 (Establishment of Statutory Committees)

Lord Alderdice: Is amendment No60 moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: For the convenience of the Assembly, I will consider amendments60, 59, 55 and56 to be subject to one vote. If amendment60 falls, I will not move the other three because they are consequential amendments.
Amendment (No60) proposed: 
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 34; Noes 57.
AYES
Nationalist
Nil.
Unionist
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, RevWilliam McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
MrsEileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, DrAlasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, MrsMary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, MrsJoan Carson, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Rt Hon David Trimble.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 91 Members. Of Nationalists, there voted 35 all against. Of the Unionists, there voted 29 for and 22against, a total of 51. The total vote for is 37·4% and the amendment therefore falls.
Question accordingly negatived.

Lord Alderdice: Is amendment No57 moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Moved.
Amendment (No57) made:

Lord Alderdice: Is amendment No58 moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Moved.
Amendment (No58) made: 
Amendment (No54) proposed: 
"or the Minister is responsible for a Department in which a junior Minister is placed who is a member of his/her party." —[MrPRobinson]
Question
Standing Order 44, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Alderdice: Before moving on to the rest of the amendments, may I make one brief announcement at this point for the information of Members. In a letter dated 8 March, headed ‘Additional Standing Orders’, the Secretary of State says
"As you know, it is my responsibility, under paragraph 10 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, to determine the Standing Orders of the Assembly during its shadow period.
It is therefore hereby determined that Additional Standing Orders on the appointment of Ministers (designate), the establishment of shadow statutory committees, exclusion or removal from office and determination of Junior Ministers (designate), attached as Annex A, should become Standing Orders 22, 23, 24 and 25 respectively."
Copies of this letter and the Annex are available in the Printed Paper Office for Members.

Mr Peter Robinson: Could you indicate, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, if, therefore, you are deeming those Standing Orders to be in effect from this moment?

Lord Alderdice: That is correct. I have received them, they are titled as having been hereby determined, and at the first point when I have had the fair copy of the letter from the Secretary of State I have brought them to the attention of the Assembly.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Members will recall that last week when this matter was drawn to the attention of the House, I rose to ask one of the joint Chairmen whether it would be possible for the Committee on Standing Orders to look at these draft Additional Standing Orders and the undertaking was given that that would be done. I am somewhat surprised that the Committee has not looked at those Additional Standing Orders and I would like to place on record that that should have been done. There was opportunity to do so, especially in light of the undertaking that was given.

Lord Alderdice: I recall your making that point at the time. I do not know whether either of the joint Chairmen wishes to address the point at this stage.

Mr Denis Haughey: The Additional Initial Standing Orders became available to us quite late, and it was not possible to call a meeting, especially in view of the work that needed to be done for this sitting. We would need to call a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee subsequent to the work of this plenary session on these Standing Orders, and the matter could be addressed then.

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, could you give us your interpretation of the Additional Standing Order 22(1), which says
"Where a determination has been made and approved in accordance with Standing Order 21" —
I assume that has been done in the Chamber —
"the Presiding Officer shall, at the next meeting of the Assembly after 9March, supervise the allocation and taking up of the Ministerial offices (designate) in accordance with the procedure set out in this Standing Order."
Is it your interpretation, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that that will be your first duty at the next meeting of the Assembly?

Lord Alderdice: That is my understanding. If I may, I will read a further passage from the Secretary of State’s letter as I did not go through all of it. She says
"Consequently paragraph 1 of Standing Order 22 now refers to the procedure being run at the next Assembly meeting after 10March. Furthermore, in order to avoid indefinite delay, I have told the parties that I shall call a meeting of the Assembly for the purposes of running D’Hondt in the week beginning 29March. I shall confirm the exact date and time of that meeting with you in the normal manner."
The reason the Secretary of State refers to it in this fashion is that we have been given leave to meet until 10o’clock this evening in respect of Standing Orders. It has been indicated to me, and I am somewhat hesitant to convey this to the Assembly, that if it were necessary, it might be possible for the Assembly to meet even longer.
The reason the Secretary of State has put it in that fashion is to make clear that, even if it were the case that we needed to transgress into tomorrow for the continuation of this process, it would be the next Assembly meeting after 10March at which d’Hondt would be run. That is to say, we do not currently have leave from the Secretary of State to have a meeting of the Assembly beyond 10 March. And when she does give leave she is making it clear that it will only be given for a meeting of the Assembly in the week beginning 29March and that she will inform us as to when such a meeting is possible. I trust that is clear.

Mr Peter Robinson: Does that mean that the Secretary of State is giving the Assembly a compulsory two-week holiday?

Lord Alderdice: I am sorry I was not able to hear the Member because the Clerk was advising me.

Mr Peter Robinson: Under these Standing Orders we could sit tomorrow, but after that the Assembly cannot sit until the week commencing 29March. That is the case if there is any consistency between the Secretary of State’s letter and the Standing Orders.

Lord Alderdice: That is correct, and that is why I drew the information to Members’ attention immediately it became available.

Mr Robert McCartney: Do you understand from the communications or intelligence that you have received from the Secretary of State that, after tomorrow, if we run into tomorrow, the next meeting of the Assembly will be on 29March or on some date as yet not specified in the week beginning 29March?

Lord Alderdice: The passage in the letter from the Secretary of State says that she has told the parties that she shall call a meeting of the Assembly for the purposes of running d’Hondt in the week beginning 29March. It could be on 29March or, I assume, on another day that week.
We shall continue with the approval of Standing Orders and amendments. I understand that amendment No84 has been withdrawn.

Mr Sean Neeson: We have withdrawn it on the understanding that no Member or political party will be excluded from any of the Statutory Committees.

Mr Peter Robinson: What was the source of the assurances on which the intended mover of the amendment can rely to withdraw it? That should be on the record for his sake as well as ours.

Lord Alderdice: I am hesitant about permitting this. I might even have ruled the previous Member out of order. When an amendment is withdrawn, there is no right to speak to it. It is possible to speak to an amendment and not move it, but to withdraw it precludes the possibility of debate on it. I am afraid I cannot permit further discussion on this matter. Not all Members may have been aware of the position. I draw it to their attention now and hope that it does not cause undue difficulty. I repeat that when a Member chooses to withdraw an amendment without speaking to it or does not move it, there is no debate on it.
When a Member speaks to an amendment, he may or may not move it. Members will be aware that before we move to the vote, I ask the Member whether he wishes to move his amendment. The reason for that is that some Members may wish to table probing amendments to draw matters out. Members will have noticed that there has been no debate on Standing Orders. I have simply taken the vote on them. There has been debate only where Standing Orders have amendments. Amendments are often tabled to trigger a debate, but they may not be moved. When they are withdrawn, there is no debate.

Mr Cedric Wilson: It was a qualified withdrawal. The Member said that he was withdrawing it on the basis that he had undertakings and understandings that all parties would be represented on all the committees. There is an onus on you, MrInitial Presiding Officer, to place on the record the fact that those were not given to the Assembly.

Lord Alderdice: There is no such thing as a qualified withdrawal. The amendment was either withdrawn or it was not. As it was withdrawn, I granted some flexibility in permitting the Member to comment upon the matter. To go further would be quite improper.
There is still a substantial number of Standing Orders and amendments in this group. However, many of them are technical, some are largely typographical, and some 10amendments effectively form one large group. The series of amendments 3(a) to (e) form a single amendment, although they are divided for the sake of clarity. There are also the relevant amendments that are the same, but form individual amendments.
I trust that we will be able to get through that matter as one debate. As there is one proposer for a considerable number of the amendments, he may need to propose them and then speak again. The first amendment in the group is amendment No62, standing in the name of MrPRobinson. I call on him to deal with it and with any others that he finds it possible to address.

Mr Peter Robinson: I will get into fifth gear very quickly.
Amendment No 62 simply seeks to replace an upper case A with a lower case a — I do not think we will fall out about that one. It will be a small allocation rather than a big one.
Amendment No53 to Standing Order46(2) seeks to reflect what is more likely to be the working practice of committees. If a committee that is responsible for taking the lead on a piece of legislation that also covers a topic falling more properly into the remit of another committee, rather than taking the views and establishing the interests of the other committee, it ought to be able to ask the other committee to investigate and take evidence on that element which falls into its remit. The other committee would then provide the lead committee with a draft report, and it would have the final say as to whether to adopt the draft report in its entirety. In terms of working practice it would allow the experts in a particular subject to deal directly with that subject rather than delegating it to another committee. The amendment simply takes into account good working practice.
Amendment No 52 to Standing Order 49 seeks to remove the ability of a committee to continue to sit while a vote was taking place in the Assembly. That is entirely necessary, particularly in circumstances where, for example, a Member from a small party had not arrived when a vote was being taken, or came in or had left a meeting when a vote was being taken.
Without the amendment, two Divisions could take place at the same time; one in the committee and one in the Assembly. A vote in this Assembly should always have precedence over any business that is being carried out in the precincts of the House. A committee should automatically, without any alternatives being offered, be suspended to allow everyone to vote.
Amendment No 51 relates to Standing Order 50. It was the committee’s intention to ensure that any sub-committee would have a balanced membership, that there would be proportionality. My amendment does not specify the nature of the proportionality or balance, but requires it. Without that, a committee could consist of members from one or two parties, and I do not think that anyone would regard that as fair, given the nature of the structures that are being set up.
Amendment No 82 to Standing Order53 seeks to tidy up a very awkward heading. I am sure that no one particularly likes a heading such as "Conformity with Equality Requirements – Special Committee On". I note that the facing page shows the headings "Public Accounts Committee" and "Committee on Standards and Privileges". I see nothing wrong with "Special Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements".
Amendment No81 seeks to bring consistency elsewhere. In referring to the European Convention on Human Rights, we have talked about "including rights under". That is to conform with other parts of the Standing Orders.
I come to amendment No80. Rather than giving the Assembly a choice in dealing with reports, the amendment requires it to deal with all reports. I hope that that was the intention of the draftsman.
With regard to the petition of concern, amendmentNo79 simply points out that we had actually transferred that sub-section of the Standing Order to the voting section. It is incorporated elsewhere and is, therefore, being deleted at this point. Incidentally, in the renumbering paragraph(6) will become paragraph(5).
The Public Accounts Committee is one of the most important committees of the House or any other elected body. It is where all spending and the processes which give rise to spending are scrutinised. The intention on the part of the draftsmen, as I read it, was based on a misunderstanding of what a Public Accounts Committee does. A Public Accounts Committee does not simply take account of finance in the context of the Department of Finance and Personnel, it takes account of finance in every Department. All Ministers dread being called before the Public Accounts Committee to give account of the expenditure in their Departments.
Rather than excluding only those who are in the same party as the Minister or a junior Minister of the Department of Finance and Personnel from the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson posts, I am suggesting that those in the same party as any Minister or junior Minister should be excluded. That would ensure that there was proper scrutiny and that party colleagues would not be in the position of questioning the Minister and taking the lead in determining issues.
AmendmentNo77 deals with the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the term in paragraph 1(a) should be "privilege" rather than "privileges".
There is a fairly innocuous change in the section on the Audit Committee. Under the Standing Orders as it stands, it does not outline how the committee is to be established, only that it shall. The purpose of Standing Orders is to advise us on how this will be done. Therefore it has been changed to say that the Assembly shall, by resolution, establish a committee to exercise the functions. That simply is a tidying-up amendment. I am not sure whether that is the end of that series of amendments. If so, I beg to move.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I will speak to amendmentNo3. Although it refers to five different Standing Orders, No 3 was, as indicated earlier, submitted as one amendment. However, it refers to the same point in each of them. The principle is entirely the same, and it is preferable that the matter be taken as a single issue, as you indicated.
Following the good old practice of belt and braces, my Colleague MrDavis has also tabled amendments to the same effect. I am pleased to record that I got my amendments in before his, but that was purely just a matter of minutes. Most of MrDavis’s amendments are to the same effect and consequently this does make a single issue.
There is, in my view, a serious anomaly in the Standing Orders with regard to non-Statutory Committees. In fact, there is a serious anomaly which is contrary to the agreement and contrary to the Act, and that is something that we have to look very carefully at.
With regard to Statutory Committees, there are provisions in Standing Order 45, which we have approved, which apply the principle of proportionality to committees and provide for the distribution of posts, offices, Chairmanships, vice-Chairmanships by the d’Hondt formula and which also apply proportionality to the membership of the committees. That, of course, is entirely in accordance with the agreement.
Standing Order47 applies the d’Hondt formula to Chairs and deputy Chairs of non-Statutory Committees to ensure that proportionality applies with regard to offices. It does have a general provision in paragraph (4) that Standing Committees, unless otherwise specified, shall be constituted in the manner prescribed in Standing Order45.
So, the effect of Standing Order 47(4) by itself is to apply the principle of proportionality to the non-Statutory Standing Committees. Unfortunately, when we turn to Standing Orders Nos 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55, dealing, respectively, with the Committee on Procedures, the Business Committee, the Special Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements, the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Standards and Privilege — and I adopt the language suggested by Mr P Robinson here, as it is correct — we find that there are sub-clauses in them which do not apply the terms of Standing Order No 45, and, consequently, do not apply the principle of proportionality.
The provisions contained in the clauses which my amendment would remove do not apply the principle of proportionality and produce a result which is not proportional. The amendment I have tabled would remove those clauses and bring into effect Standing Order 47(4), which imports Standing Order 45, which would, in turn, import the principle of proportionality.
It all comes down to the very simple question of whether or not we abide by the principle of proportionality in the Standing Committees. The Standing Orders, as drafted, depart from this principle, but my amendment would ensure that this principle was applied with regard to the other Standing Committees. I submit that that is precisely what we should be doing, according to the terms of the agreement and of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Paragraph 5 of the section of the agreement which deals with strand-one institutions states
"There will be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community can participate … including:
(a) allocations of Committee Chairs, Ministers and Committee membership in proportion to party strengths".
All those who were involved directly in the negotiation of the agreement will know that the principle of proportionality was absolutely central to our decisions on strand-one institutions. Proportionality was to apply in the operation of the Assembly and to the allocation of Offices within it. The very first safeguard contained in the agreement is the application of proportionality to the appointment of committee Chairs, Ministers and committee members.
The provisions, as they currently stand, would apply proportionality to the appointment of committee Chairs but not to committee membership. In my view, that departs from the agreement, and it departs from the relevant provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, paragraph4(1) of schedule6 of which states
"The standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that, in appointing members to committees, regard is had to the balance of parties in the Assembly."
The use of the phrase "balance of parties" clearly implies the application of the principle of proportionality.
It is a very simple, very clear point. I do not need to elucidate it further. Do we stand by the principle of proportionality? I believe that we ought to. I believe that, as a matter of law, we have to, but I also believe that we ought to, because that is the fundamental principle on which the provisions of the agreement relating to this body are based.
This Standing Order departs from that principle, and, consequently, I urge the House to accept this amendment, so that the principle of proportionality will apply to those five Standing Committees in exactly the same way in which it will apply to the Statutory Committees. No distinction should be made between these committees, and to make such a distinction would be to run counter to the principle upon which the Assembly was established. This is simply a matter of adhering to the terms of the agreement.

Mr Ivan Davis: I wish to move the amendments which are down in my name.

Mr Eddie McGrady: rose

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt just as the Member was about to get into top gear.
There are some errors in the amendment sheet which Members need to take account of. Amendment78, as I submitted it, was to Standing Order54(3), line2, and it was to leave out all the words after "party as" and to insert "any Minister or junior Minister." That should make more sense to Members than the original.
In amendment 65, relating to Standing Order 66, the reference is to "to" in the fourth line, not the "to" in the second or third line. It should say Standing Order66(6), line4, after "to" insert —

Lord Alderdice: Which amendment are we at?

Mr Peter Robinson: That one is 65.

Lord Alderdice: This is amendment65, on page19 — the last page of the Marshalled List. Could you give us that one again please, MrRobinson?

Mr Peter Robinson: It is Standing Order 66(6), line 4, after "to". There is also a "to" on the second and third lines so it is to ensure that everyone is amending the right one.

Lord Alderdice: I am grateful to you for bringing that to Members’ attention. I shall try to draw it to Members’ attention when it is time to vote on those amendments.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Mr Initial Presiding Officer — for the second time — I commend to the Assembly amendment86, standing in my name, which is a very modest intrusion into this debate on my part. It is a probing amendment seeking clarification and interpretation, which I hope will inform the Assembly of the mind and will of the Standing Orders Committee through its co-Chairmen. It refers to draft Standing Order52(1), which refers to
"a Standing Committee of the Assembly to be known as the Business Committee which shall arrange the business of the Assembly".
This Committee will obviously be the successor of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, known as CAPO. CAPO is a purely consultative body, which advises the Initial Presiding Officer. This Standing Order assumes, subject to explanation and interpretation, an entirely different meaning when it says
"the Business Committee … shall arrange the business of the Assembly".
Normally, apart from Private Members’ business, the business of the Assembly is arranged by the Government — in this case, I hope, the four major participating parties in the Executive Committee.
In proposing this probing amendment I am conscious of Standing Order12(4), which lays down that the Executive Committee
"shall have the right of placing its business in any order that it pleases prior to the issue of the Order Paper".
I hope to make it more evident by changing the word "arrange" to "make arrangements for". This means taking on board that which is required and recommended from other sources such as the Executive, public business or private business, so that the appropriate logistical arrangements can be made for debate. I would like clarification from the co-Chairmen of the Standing Orders Committee that that is what was intended, that the Committee would arrange the business presented to it, rather than dictate what the public, personal, private or other business of the Assembly would be.
I think that there is a most important distinction here and if the Initial Presiding Officer could provide either of the joint Chairmen with the opportunity to express the mind of the Standing Orders Committee on this matter, Members could decide if this matter should be voted upon.

Mr David Ervine: I rise somewhat reluctantly to discuss this issue — I did not expect that I would have to do so. There was a quite serious and heated debate in the Standing Orders Committee around the issue of membership of committees. First, it was about the membership of Statutory Committees. It seemed that the larger parties had difficulty with going beyond the figure of 11, including a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman, because of the stress, strain, and difficulty it would cause to their large number of members to facilitate a series of committees, potentially three or four committees.
We can argue about the week’s work. Members pointed out earlier that we have three days other than the two sitting days, and there seems to be plenty of opportunity for Members to be gainfully employed on a large number of committees. However, it was deemed by the larger parties that that should not happen, even though the smaller parties argued that they could facilitate more than one committee, which is their allocation — one each for a party the size of the Progressive Unionist Party — across the ten Committees.
In some respects that is worrying because the make-up of the 11 committees will include a tiny minority, and I emphasise "tiny minority", of those who are not members of the Government. Indeed, different parties may be represented on a committee which scrutinises a Minister, but their representatives will also be part of the collective Government of which that Minister is a part.
We have consistently pointed out our fear of the absence of a reasonable Opposition. Others, including members of the larger parties on the Standing Orders Committee, have done the same. It was consistently pointed out with regard to the Statutory Committees, but I am sure that some of the other smaller parties will concur with me in saying that we had to concede because we had no choice but to concede.
The theory of the larger parties seems to be that there should be lots of consultation, but that back at the ranch they will do what they want to do anyway. We found that that was the case among the larger parties in relation to statutory bodies. We gave up the ghost somewhat and found ourselves — and this is reflected adequately in the minutes — leaving the committee meeting of 26February thinking that Statutory and non-Statutory Committees would have 11 members including the Chair and the Deputy Chair.
However, in the inimitable words of the BBC’s MarkSimpson, "compromise broke out at Stormont". An SDLP member of the Standing Orders Committee, unsolicited I have to say, said "Well, I might have been a bit harsh last week and those committees — " and he went on to name the four committees that Members have in front of them as non-Statutory Committees, " — may well be looked at somewhat differently." We thought that that was great. I had intended to place an amendment on the make-up of the Statutory Committees before the Assembly. However, since there seemed to have been a reasonable degree of concession from all of the large parties, we did seem to have agreement. I quote from the minutes of the meeting that was held on 2March 1999:
"It was agreed that there should be two types of Standing Committee as follows:
Committees that would fall into the category of Rule45 on Statutory Committees and special Standing Committees that required a representative presence of every party in the Assembly."
I am somewhat disappointed to find out not only that amendments have been tabled but that some of the larger parties seem likely to vote in agreement with the amendment put forward by the First Minister (Designate).

Dr Sean Farren: I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee. The minutes of the meeting of the Standing Orders Committee are as the Member has stated. Does he agree that the numerical composition of the committees which are listed for Procedures, Standards, Privilege and so on is not specified? Therefore my point stands. I think that I used the Public Accounts Committee as an exemplar. All parties should be represented on these committees, but what is before us may not effect that in quite the same way.

Mr David Ervine: The Member makes a fair point. I will be loath to give way in future for such an intervention. I make no criticism of his having, on that day, put forward, without solicitation, what I thought was some form of compromise towards the smaller parties. My difficulty is with the Standing Orders. I accept that there was no determination of the numbers or the specific size, although it was accepted that it would be larger than the non-Statutory Committee and would, as far as possible, have a broad representation.
Where did the figures come from? I do not criticise those who imported the figures. My criticism is of the larger parties that allowed the amendment to be tabled but advocated a different formula. However, they did not propose a formula to show the proportionality they were prepared to accept irrespective of that which the First Minister wants. The First Minister has addressed a specific issue relating to the Act and the agreement, and has given his reasons for tabling the amendment. I wish that it were the only issue that I think exists, but I am somewhat concerned over the carve-up of the Speaker.
I am concerned by the fact that there will be 11 members on a committee and the minimum number possible of those who could conceivably provide opposition. That begins to worry me in the context of collective governance — if we ever get to that. I am somewhat dismayed by the fact that the amendment essentially abandons an agreement while there is no counter amendment from parties who created a situation that could have led to proportionality which was different from that in the Statutory Committee.
I appeal to Members with a fair point. It is that those who vote against this and support the amendment will deny the small parties the representation that they deserve.
I shall extrapolate from a point that the First Minister made when he talked about proportionality. If I am not mistaken, the Act and the agreement do not preclude every Member of the Assembly from being on a committee. When he talks about his level of proportionality, he does not consider the fact that other committees have functioned very well. Examples are the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, the Standing Orders Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on the Port of Belfast. They have not been that unwieldy, and they offer a genuine opportunity for greater participation by those who are in opposition. In the light of our debate about the lack of scrutiny of the central Department, this proposal will not go down that well. It represents suppression of the smaller parties.
It is a degree of closing down the opportunity, or, dare I use that well-worn word in NorthernIreland, a "perception". But the UUP and the SDLP did carve up the position of Speaker, and it will be perceived — and is by me — that the main reason given for putting down the amendment is not the real reason behind it.

Mr Nigel Dodds: In relation to the amendments in MrTrimble’s name, I want to draw the Assembly’s attention to the fact that in the Standing Orders laid before the House, there are matters that were never agreed by the Standing Orders Committee.
At the Standing Orders Committee meeting of 2March, we discussed which of the non-Statutory Committees would have a representative from every Assembly party. It is stated explicitly and was agreed explicitly that these committees would be Procedures, Standards and Privileges, Public Accounts and Equality. The rules are to be reworked to reflect this.
In this document — which members of the Standing Orders Committee did not get in final form before any other Member — we discovered that draft Standing Order 52 also includes the Business Committee as one of those committees. That is clearly a mistake; that was not what the Committee intended or agreed.
Mr Ervine pointed out that there was, however, an agreement in relation to the other four committees, and he is quite right about that. It was discussed and agreed that because of the particular nature of those committees, they should have a representative presence from each party. But that did not include the Business Committee, and I am amazed to find it included in this draft. I do not know who inserted it, but it should not be there; it was not agreed by the Standing Orders Committee.
It is quite in order, of course, for a Member to have an amendment to that effect put down, but it should not have been included in the draft. Therefore the amendment that is in Mr Trimble’s name in relation to the Business Committee is a valid one. However, the nature of the other four committees was discussed at some length by the Standing Orders Committee, and it was felt that there should be a representative presence of every party, and I think that that is quite reasonable in relation to those specific committees.
I listened with some considerable degree of interest to what Mr Trimble said on the basic principle of proportionality. He spent a long time labouring the fact that proportionality was central to the agreement and that it would be quite wrong to do anything contrary to the principle of proportionality. He laboured this point time and time again in his remarks in relation to committees of this Assembly. Yet it is interesting that on the main committee of this whole process — the Executive Committee — we do not have proportionality. When MrTrimble agreed the make-up of the Executive Committee, he agreed to a committee with a make-up which is totally out of proportion to party strengths and to the party votes in the Assembly.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am sorry to have to say that the Member’s point is entirely wrong and completely misconceived. Proportionality does apply to the Executive Committee, because the d’Hondt formula applies to it. If the Member is saying that it is strange that a proportional principle would produce an Executive that might be fifty-fifty, whereas in terms of this Chamber there are 58 Unionists and 42 Nationalists, he should ask his party Leader why he threw away one seat, why he did not stand with his Colleagues in the election as a united Unionist.
Had he come into this Chamber as a united Unionist, as a block of 28, he would have been entitled to three seats on the Executive, not two, so why did his party and Mr McCartney’s party decide to disaggregate themselves and throw away a seat?

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am very glad that I have got so much under the skin of the First Minister (Designate). He is so worked up about this that he is now in a sedentary position — obviously the point I made has struck home. We do not have a fifty-fifty split between Unionists and Nationalists in the Assembly, so there should not be a fifty-fifty split on the Executive. We do not have a fifty-fifty split between Unionists and Nationalists in the electorate. [Interruption]
4.00 pm
This is the argument we hear from the First Minister (Designate) all the time. When something he has agreed to goes wrong, he blames everyone else. He says "It is your fault that prisoners are getting out; it is your fault that the RUC are under attack; it is your fault that there is a fifty-fifty carve-up in the Executive." The reality is that MrTrimble agreed to this— he is responsible. He is becoming very agitated, MrInitial PresidingOfficer, and I urge him for the sake of his health to calm down — [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order. Some Members have been complaining about the tedium of dealing with Standing Orders. Perhaps we can return to the tedium.

Mr Nigel Dodds: This proportionality principle that MrTrimble waxed so loudly and lyrically about just a short time ago does not apply to the Executive. If he had followed our advice —[Interruption]
He is off again. He is really getting terribly excited about this. It has struck home. He is not behaving himself terribly well. The reality is that if he had followed our advice and opted for seven Ministries, as was his initial position and that of members of his party, we would have a proportionate make-up in the Executive. We would have an Executive which reflected the balance of the parties in this House, and a balance of political identity. However, MrTrimble threw that away, having argued —[Interruption]
They are all getting terribly excited about this and trying to put the blame on everyone else when it was they who made this agreement. They were advised against it by MrKenMaginnis and other members of the party, including MrNicholson, but they ignored that advice and opted for a Committee which is not proportionate, which is half and half, and on which Unionists do not even have a majority of seats.
Then the First Minister (Designate) stands up and talks about proportionality for these committees, which are far less important than the main Executive Committee which will have responsibility for governing Northern Ireland. He does not understand what proportionality is. He has applied a principle which means that Nationalists, although they cannot command a majority in this House, will have half of the seats on the Executive.

Lord Alderdice: Order. I ask Members to do other Members the courtesy of listening to what they say.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. There is a parliamentary precedent that where the disruption and loutish behaviour is coming from one particular quarter—[Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order. The Member is making a point of order, and other Members should listen.

Mr Peter Robinson: As I was saying, where the disruption is coming from one particular quarter then the Speaker should direct the admonition to that quarter. The First Minister (Designate) is behaving in a most appalling fashion, which is not in keeping with his Office, and I think that you should exercise your authority to stop it.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I appeal to those Members who were upbraiding the Member as he spoke — although it was my impression that he was managing very well — to bring some degree of decorum to the debate. I ask that the Member is permitted to continue with what he has to say without inappropriate interruption.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does Mr Dodds agree that it is just as well that we have not yet agreed Standing Order57 because, had that been the case, the First Minister (Designate) would have already breached paragraphs 57(1)(a), 57(1)(b), 57(1)(c) and would have been reprimanded by the Speaker?

Mr Nigel Dodds: I could have understood the First Minister (Designate)’s getting excited, had I not been prepared to give way to him. I allowed him to intervene but, not content with that, he tries to interrupt and behaves in a loutish way in his place.
We are happy to support the Business Committee amendment, but we intend to stick by our agreement on the others. Indeed, all the parties that were represented on the Standing Orders Committee made that agreement. I wish that MrTrimble had been so assiduous in applying the principle of proportionately and democracy to the Executive Committee. That would have ensured that Nationalists, who do not command a 50% vote in the House or among the electorate, would not get 50% of the seats. There would be true proportionality on the Executive Committee. Unfortunately he failed in that, as he has failed on so many issues in relation to this process. No doubt he will fail again.

Mr Denis Haughey: I want to refer to amendment No78 in the name of MrPRobinson. On behalf of my party, I want to make it clear that we are entirely in sympathy with the spirit of the amendment. It is the practice in most legislatures for the Public Accounts Committee to be chaired by a member of a party that is not involved in the Administration. We agree with that. We also agree with the proposition that the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee be held by a member of a party other than the party of the Minister for Finance or that of any junior Minister in his Department.
However, we have a difficulty with that. I hope that we are in the process of constructing the most inclusive form of government that is practicable. I invite MrRobinson to consider the consequence of excluding from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee a member of any party who is in any way involved, either as a Minister or as a junior Minister, in the Administration. That could inhibit the freedom of movement of the First and Deputy First Ministers.
I do not pretend to know what is in their heads in relation to the appointment of junior Ministers, but I know that it is technically possible for them to consider the appointment of members of parties other than their own, perhaps members of smaller parties in the House. MrRobinson may wish to reflect on that and decide whether he wishes to proceed with the amendment. I assure him that the SDLP wholly supports the spirit of the amendment, but see that small difficulty in terms of the future possibilities of creating the most inclusive form of Administration.
Standing Order47 refers to the composition of certain non-Statutory Standing Committees. My party will support the First Minister’s amendment and other amendments which seek to delete paragraphs that determine the composition of those committees. I do not agree with the First Minister that such a process activates Standing Order47(4) and necessarily means that those committees would simply consist of 11 members. Standing Order47(4) states:
"Standing Committees unless otherwise specified in Standing Orders shall be constituted in the manner prescribed in Standing Order45."
The Standing Orders Committee has much work to do subsequent to this sitting and will meet soon to consider a variety of matters arising from these debates. That should be one of them. There has been a breakdown of communications here, which I do not think is anyone’s fault but simply the result of a misunderstanding.
My recollection is that the Standing Orders Committee decided that it would be desirable to have all-party representation on certain Standing Committees and that that might be best accomplished by adopting a composition similar, if not identical, to that of the Standing Orders Committee. As Members know, that committee consists of four each from the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP, three each from the DUP and Sinn Féin, and one each from the smaller parties. My recollection is that that was what we agreed. However, the Clerks of the committee seem to have referred to an earlier formula for committee composition which was the practice in the Assembly’s earliest days. There has been a breakdown in communication.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Mr Haughey has a point when he says that the application of 47(4) does not necessarily cover the size of a committee. It occurred to me on rereading the Standing Orders today that 47(4) could be interpreted as relating to the means of selection rather than to the overall size. In the light of Mr Haughey’s argument, it occurs to me that it would be possible, by increasing the size and applying the principle of proportionality, to arrive at a result where all parties where represented. I would have no objection to the spirit of that with regard to the four committees that were identified by the Standing Orders Committee on 2 March. That might be something that could very well be taken back to the Standing Orders Committee.

Mr Denis Haughey: I am glad of the First Minister (Designate)’s intervention and that he is in a measure of agreement with me. In relation to Mr Dodds’s intervention about the Business Committee, I do recollect that a distinction was made regarding that committee. However, it would be best in these circumstances to proceed to delete the clause referring to composition, consider it further in the Standing Orders Committee, consult further about it and return with a fresh proposal.

Mr Peter Robinson: While Mr Haughey was speaking on another issue, I was reflecting, as he asked me to do, on the issue of the Public Accounts Committee. Subject to your ruling, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I think that the clause, which we have already accepted, that there should be consistency of language would permit 54(3) to be amended to the effect that the nominating officer should prefer those who are not members of parties which have a Minister or a junior Minister. That would not restrict the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister in their choices. It would allow them — although I am not sure if they have this in mind — to appoint junior Ministers from each of the parties that might be considered Opposition parties.

Mr Denis Haughey: I need time to reflect on what MrRobinson has said. I am not going to give an off-the-cuff answer.

Mr Sammy Wilson: In response to the First Minister (Designate), Mr Haughey said, unless I took him up wrongly, that one way round the question of proportionality would be to increase the size of a committee so that it was big enough to ensure representation from all parties. Can he give some guidance as to what size such a committee would have to be?

Mr Denis Haughey: The present Standing Orders Committee accomplishes the purpose that MrSWilson refers to. It accommodates all parties with two or more Members, and it has nineteen members. Such a committee need not be so huge as to be unwieldy.

Mr Peter Robinson: There is nothing in Standing Orders to say that a party of one does not constitute a party.

Mr Denis Haughey: I accept that, Mr Speaker, but the Assembly may make what Standing Orders it pleases, and if it pleases the Assembly to make a Standing Order to the effect that the composition of the committee shall be as the present Standing Orders Committee is constituted, the House has a perfect right to do that. I suggest that that was, in my recollection, what was agreed in the Standing Orders Committee, and the House may agree it in due course if it pleases.
However, I must move on — I am running out of time as a consequence of a variety of perfectly proper interventions. In relation to the amendment in his name, my Colleague, EddieMcGrady, asked for an interpretation of the mind of the Standing Orders Committee. I cannot obviously speak authoritatively for all its members, but I can offer my recollection, which was that it was their intention that the Business Committee would have responsibility for the logistical arrangements for the business of the House. It would not assume the functions of, let us say, the Leader of the House in a parliamentary style of government; it would not determine the content of the business but rather make arrangements for the doing of the business.
That is my recollection, and I believe that the amendment in the name of Eddie McGrady is perfectly proper because the wording actually makes that rather clearer than the present wording does, so I support that amendment.
In respect, finally, —

Lord Alderdice: May I ask you to try to be brief with your final remarks.

Mr Denis Haughey: Perhaps you will indulge me just for a few moments, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I was generous in allowing a lot of people to intervene.
In respect of the matter of an Opposition to the Government, which was raised by DavidErvine and others, it is not appropriate to import considerations which are appropriate to a parliamentary system of government of the traditional kind into this Assembly, where we are forging what I believe is a unique and better form of government, a consensual form of government which will involve the greatest possible number of parties. Parties will be both in the Administration and in Opposition, and that will enable Back-Bench members of the parties —

Lord Alderdice: I will have to ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Denis Haughey: — involved to criticize and subject their own Ministers to scrutiny.

Lord Alderdice: Before calling the next Member, I need to make one or two remarks. MrRobinson asked whether the cover-all clause, which was the amendment to the previous item on the agenda, to make the wording consistent and so on, would cover a change of the type to which he adverted in Standing Order 54(3)? It seems clear to me that a change of the order which he describes is much more than a mere tidying-up of words; there is a difference in meaning and substance in terms of the making of appointments, and I think that the change to which he adverts could only be made by a substantive amendment.
Now, there is another matter which is of similar order. There has been some discussion about matters being taken back or about changes to the number of members on committees and so on being made. There is no facility for taking back anything to the committee. The Assembly can only vote for or against what is here. It is, of course, entirely possible for the Standing Orders Committee to consider matters and to bring amendments or new Standing Orders or whatever to a subsequent meeting of the Assembly, but there is no facility for taking back, any more than there is a facility for a Minister to take back part of a Bill. A Member simply votes one way or another and on the basis of that the Standing Orders Committee may, at a subsequent sitting of the Assembly, bring forward new Standing Orders or amendments to existing ones. The House needs to keep that in mind when it comes to voting on amendments or, indeed, on Standing Orders themselves.

Rt Hon David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. You referred to the exchange between Denis Haughey and me about the effect of amendment 3 on Standing Order 47(4). It seemed to me that the point that he made that amendment 3, by knocking out those particular clauses in those five Standing Orders, would not necessarily bring the figure of 11 into the composition of those. It could then be, on that interpretation, that there could, if amendment 3 were carried, be a gap in the Standing Orders which the Standing Orders Committee would have to consider. It would have to consider whether a gap existed and, if so, how to fill it.

Sir Reg Empey: Mr Ervine spoke about Members’ perception of what is being proposed. Perception is a double-edged sword. My party’s perception is that some Back-Benchers are frequently not equal to MrErvine or his Colleagues. There is a widely-held view that, because of their make-up, committees such as the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, do not accurately reflect the elected membership of the Chamber.
Our view is that while there must be practical limits to the size of any committee, which is why a figure of about 11 was thought reasonable, another figure could be looked at. The feeling was that parties with one, two, three or four Members somehow think that they should have greater privileges and rights than Members of my party, and that our Back-Benchers do not equate as individuals in the same way as Members of smaller parties. That perception has existed since July, and it is largely a reflection of the fact that we came here from a talks process that was constructed in an entirely different way. In that process, representation did not reflect electoral strength.

Mr David Ervine: This Member believes in being nice to people on the way up because he never knows when he might meet them on the way down. We do not intend to be small all the time. To copper-fasten the importance of the Progressive Unionist Party, may I say that the Ulster Unionist Party has been happy enough to take our votes on various occasions.

Sir Reg Empey: That was a rather snide answer to a question that I was not putting. As the Member knows, his party was quite happy to have our votes in the City Hall. We can all talk about meeting people on the way up and meeting them again on the way down. That is not the point. The Member’s reaction confirms the general thrust of my argument.
There is a view that Back-Benchers in my party are not equal to some other Members. The perception is that some of those who are Leaders or deputy leaders of parties see themselves as more important in some way.

Mr Robert McCartney: I have a good deal of sympathy for the Member’s view. As DenisHaughey said, this is an entirely unique body, based essentially on consensus, or so it is alleged, and therefore directed towards representation by the maximum number of people.
I think the Member will agree that smaller parties are bound to be included, perhaps out of proportion to their membership. That is a remnant of a straight parliamentary situation which we are told does not operate here.

Sir Reg Empey: I do not dispute the fundamental thrust of what MrMcCartney says. Small parties have been given representation for very good reasons, and we must strike a balance between that and the practicalities of the system. MrErvine raised the issue of perception, and I am trying to express a perception that exists in the House. Many of our Members feel that they are not equal to some Members elsewhere.
I am not saying that that means that one rigidly impose a figure to the exclusion of all other considerations; that would not be fair or reasonable, and we are not going to do that. But as the exchange with MrHaughey demonstrated, there is a widespread view that we should ensure that other interests are represented. We have to stretch the practicalities — to enlarge the system — but keep a relationship between the size of a committee and the size of the parties that compose it.

Mr David Ervine: On the Standing Orders Committee, the Member’s representatives fought very hard to have the committees as small as possible. Now we are hearing an application to make them bigger than ever before.

Sir Reg Empey: I do not know whether I have been enlightened by that intervention.
I accept the fact that the committees may be varied in size, but we have to remember that they will be working committees. Having been in local government for 14years, I know that the size of a committee affects what it can do, and so we have attempted to get the right balance.
Members who sit in the House of Commons find it a very unforgiving place when it comes to committee size. In the Assembly, we have to balance the fact that the Back-Bench Members of the larger parties have to be given, as individuals, equality with Members from smaller parties. That is all I am saying. We are trying to get that balance, and I believe there is consensus emerging as to how that should be achieved. Bearing in mind what MrMcCartney said — and I fully accept what he said — when there is an even balance, you err on the side of the smaller parties for the sake of good government.
I do not know why MrErvine is so agitated with me. I will respond to what he put forward as his perception by telling him — and I can only speak for my own Colleagues — that the perception within the Ulster Unionist Party is that its Back-Bench Members are being short-changed by the system as it has hitherto operated. I hope that that perception can be resolved and that MrErvine’s perception can also be dealt with. It may be possible to increase the size of some committees and maintain the principle of proportionality. Up until now the result has been some very distorted committees, and CAPO, of course, is the most obvious example. That is my fundamental point, and if we proceed with the amendments that were proposed by the First Minister, I hope that the Standing Orders Committee will take on board the thrust of the debate and that it is going to be possible, when collecting the voices, to resolve the matter satisfactorily.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.
Most of what I wanted to know has been clarified by MrHaughey and the FirstMinister.
I was a member of the Standing Orders Committee, and I do not recognise the figures shown in respect of the non-Statutory Committees. They are far from proportional, but although we are opposed to this and will be supporting the amendment to delete it, it was not our intention to go back to the figure of 11. Any Member from a small party, who is also a member of the Standing Orders Committee, will be aware that we have been firm in our advocacy of inclusion on these committees and of our support of the small parties.
In supporting the amendment to delete this part of the Standing Order, our intentions were good, and I accept the Initial Presiding Officer’s ruling. However, there is a clear understanding from the way the debate has developed that the Standing Orders Committee has further business to deal with, and I assume that this matter will be part of it.
It is important to get beyond the perception that, because we do not support this amendment — and the DUP has tried to saddle my party with this — we are against there being scrutiny of the Department of the Centre. In fact, Sinn Féin led the charge to try to have proper scrutiny at the Centre. In order to nail any doubt about our intentions, we are supporting the amendment to delete this reference, not to bring the figure back to 11, not to exclude the smaller parties, but to bring us back to Standing Orders and to get proper proportionality.
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

Lord Alderdice: Before I call the next couple of Members to speak I need to clarify the situation again. A number of Members have experience in local government and are familiar with the pattern of matters being brought back to committees. There is no such facility here on a matter of this kind. When a matter is voted on it is either voted through or voted down. Further propositions can come forward at a later stage, but that is entirely another matter. They may come forward or they may not come forward. That cannot be legislated for.
I am aware that many Members have experience and will be familiar with that pattern of things. What you vote on you can change later if proposals are brought forward and voted upon in due time. This is in order to ensure that Members are quite clear about the procedures.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am glad that you clarified that last point. A number of us were almost taking it on trust that we would be going to look at Standing Orders again. However, you told us before, and you have told us again now, that if we vote this amendment through, it stands. I am opposing these amendments.
Although there was a lengthy debate in the Standing Orders Committee and consensus at the end of that debate, today we find that that consensus has gone out of the window, as is often the case in Northern Ireland. On this issue it is extremely important. A number of points have been made, and MrDenisHaughey actually said that here in Northern Ireland we would probably have the most inclusive form of government. We may indeed have the most inclusive form of government, but we certainly will not have the most inclusive form of Opposition to that Government if this currently stands.
The second point I want to make is that attempts were made in that committee to understand the need for inclusion, the need for different voices. SirRegEmpey rightly said that there is concern in parties such as his that sometimes the Back-Benchers do not get a fair chance to make their speeches on the Assembly Floor. He is now concerned that that might also be the case in the committees.
Clearly, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you have had to address this issue from time to time and have tried to balance that in whatever way possible. That is exactly what the Standing Orders Committee attempted to do — to balance this — and it came up with a fair compromise. We, as one of the smaller parties, agreed with that compromise. We agreed that it would not necessarily be the case that we would be able to sit on all these Statutory Committees, but that there would be a choice of other committees. Now that has been foreclosed and I am saying to you that —

Dr Sean Farren: Would the Member not agree that several of the interventions and contributions from the SDLP and other parties made it clear and put it on the record — notwithstanding the direction received from the Presiding Officer with respect to the notion of putting items back to the Standing Orders Committee — that the parties are clearly concerned to have these matters addressed in a way which will ensure the kind of inclusivity that is being talked about?
What is being objected to is the numerical prescription which we find in the draft Standing Orders which was not, and this has been admitted to by a number of contributors to the debate, something which was agreed to when the matter left the Standing Orders Committee at its last meeting and has appeared since.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I take the point that MrFarren has just made, but I hope that he also takes my point that if this is voted through today, I, and a number of other small parties, will be faced with making the Standing Orders Committee one of the committees that we choose. If we do not make it one of those committees, we will not have a voice on it. MrMcCartney spoke at length yesterday about our civic duty in the Assembly.
It seems to me that we are faced with a very tough choice here. We have a civic duty to the people who have sent us here to sit on scrutiny committees and other committees of the Assembly, but we may choose to fight for our right to be on the Standing Orders Committee in the first place. That is the choice that we are faced with if this amendment goes through, and, therefore, I ask those, who were previously considered to be in favour of this, now to think again.

Mr Peter Robinson: I ask the Member to pay attention to Standing Order 54 (Public Accounts Committee). Although Members may not realise it now, this will be a key function of the Assembly. It will be one of the most important ways of calling an Executive to account on financial and economic matters. If MrTrimble’s proposal to delete sub-paragraph 4 is successful, the Opposition numbers on that committee would be significantly reduced. At the same time there is more than a hint from the SDLP that they do not want the Chairman and Deputy Chairman to be from the Opposition parties.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I was coming to that point and I will respond to it now.
Prior to coming in here today, we listened at length to people talking about the need for the Chairperson of that committee to come from the Opposition. In fact, we have often been told that that creates healthy democracy, and now, even that avenue is being closed down. MrPRobinson, quite rightly, put forward an amendment, which the Initial Presiding Officer said may be out of order because of its wording. I will seek clarification on that. If that amendment still stands — and I would be glad to hear that — I would vote for it.

Mr Peter Robinson: The Initial Presiding Officer was not questioning the legality of the amendment that I have on the Order Paper. It was a suggestion that would have been a compromise to call MrHaughey’s bluff. He said that it would be difficult because the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister might want to appoint Ms McWilliams, MrErvine, MrClose, MrMcCartney and, perhaps, MrWilson as junior Ministers. That would mean that they could not have a Chairman and Deputy Chairman on the committee. I rather suspect that that is not the intention of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but that was the scenario that was being painted. I suggested a way out of that, which the Initial Presiding Officer explained would not be in order.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Thank you for that clarification. I can see why MrHaughey is considering taking time out in order to respond to it.
I am concerned about who will benefit from the exclusion. A number of Members — indeed, all parties were represented on that committee — spoke at length about the need to have inclusion on these other committees. That is why these Standing Orders were put forward in the way they have been. Judging by what is going on here today, something has clearly happened since the last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee. I think that a bit of a stitch-up is going on and it needs to be stopped.
During yesterday’s debate and today’s I was pleased to hear some Members speaking up for the rights of the smaller parties, although I was disappointed to hear today that Reg Empey is so concerned about his Back-Benchers that he would throw a little element of democracy out of the window in order to have them heard.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Member agree that during the debate on committees, the Ulster Unionist Party was arguing in favour of having smaller committees? Was it not saying that if there were large committees, they would have so many places that they could not possibly fill them? Given the exchanges here today, there will be eight extra places for Ulster Unionist Party Members, places which they probably will not be able to fill.

Mr Fred Cobain: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Does the Member agree with the Ulster Unionist Party on that point?

Prof Monica McWilliams: When one is attempting to win a vote, one should not offend those who are in the position of being able to change their minds when that vote is being taken. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Back-Benchers, and there was a great deal of concern about how we could take that into account in terms of the committee.
I respond to Mr Haughey by saying that it is not healthy to suggest, as he did, that there would be several Back-Benchers on these committees, and, therefore, that there would be several voices. How can we go out and tell the electorate that that is the case? How can we have healthy debate on that committee or, indeed, good healthy scrutiny if only the four parties in Government are represented on it? A great deal of thinking needs to go on here before Members will be inclined to vote for these amendments.

Mr Mark Durkan: I would like to deal with several of the points raised and, first of all, with the allegation made by Ms McWilliams that there is a stitch-up going on and with the similar allegation made by MrErvine. MrErvine himself made the point that the Committee on Standing Orders never agreed that committees would be constituted on the basis of two members for parties with more than 16Members and one member for each party with fewer than 16Members. MrErvine said that he was suspicious about that.

Mr David Ervine: I accepted that, and I did not blame those who had put that formula in place, because it is, at least, some kind of formula. My argument today is that the larger parties are about to deny us the proportionality inherent in that formula, without suggesting a new formula to replace it.

Mr Mark Durkan: I was coming to that. I heard that point the first time.
Mr Ervine has agreed that this did not come from the Committee on Standing Orders and has expressed some suspicion about it. His suspicion was directed at the larger parties. The larger parties are now prepared to delete that provision, as it is not in keeping with the principle of proportionality. The larger parties have made it clear that they are standing by the view that they put to the Committee on Standing Orders that these committees should include representatives from all parties in the Assembly. We put that proposal forward. It is recorded in the minutes of the final meeting of the Committee on Standing Orders and included in part (I) of the report. We stand by that.
With regard to the point made by the Initial Presiding Officer that we cannot refer matters back to the Committee on Standing Orders, this is correct, as things stand. However, these Standing Orders allow us to appoint a Committee on Procedures, and that committee will have responsibility for looking at Standing Orders, as the need arises. However, according to the additional Initial Standing Orders drawn up by the Secretary of State, the Committee on Standing Orders still has a further function to discharge, and that relates to the appointment of Statutory Committees. Therefore the fear expressed by MsMcWilliams that her party will be obliged to settle for representation on, for example, the Business Committee, rather than a scrutiny committee, is unfounded.
The appointments that will be made will only be to the shadow Statutory Committees, not to the committees that we are dealing with now. Indeed, we might well ask whether we need further additional Initial Standing Orders from the Secretary of State to allow us to appoint the committees which we are currently discussing. At present, there is nothing in Standing Orders to allow us to do this. All we have is the authority to appoint the shadow Statutory Committees, not these other committees.
The additional Initial Standing Orders state that proposals for appointments to the Statutory Committees must come from the Committee on Standing Orders, and that includes specification of matters such as the number of members on a committee. Obviously, we have already made a decision on the number of members on a Statutory Committee, but the scenario set out by MsMcWilliams does not apply to the appointment of members of these committees. There is a clear distinction between the Statutory Committees and the other committees. So, the suspicion being expressed by MsMcWilliams is completely misplaced. It has no basis in fact. We should deal with facts in this situation, rather than with fears, smears and sneers.
In relation to the Public Accounts Committee, for instance, I agree wholeheartedly with the points made by Mr Peter Robinson. We want to make sure that all parties, including the parties not represented on the Executive, have a strong presence on that committee. However, because the system within which we operate is based on inclusive Opposition, as well as inclusive Government, the scrutiny bodies should include representatives from the larger parties. The fact that a party has qualified to participate in the Executive should not prevent its Members from taking part in all the other functions of the Assembly and its committees. We were anxious to ensure that the committees, including the Public Accounts Committee, were of a reasonable size and included representatives of all parties.
Going along with this deletion would not preclude every party from being represented on these committees. However, it will prevent a very disproportionate character being built in, where parties with two or — if Members move on the other Standing Order identified by MrRobinson — even one will be on all the committees, while the larger parties will have only two members on them. The disproportionateness of that is fairly stark, and that needs to be addressed.
I take Mr Ervine’s excellent point about the important work of all-party committees and how well they work. He gave the Port of Belfast Committee as an example. That is a very good committee, but its make-up is different from what he is trying to defend here. He is seeking a more disproportionate make-up than exists on the excellent committee he has referred to. Members should follow the logic of what MrErvine has said and apply the same yardstick to these committees.

Mr David Ervine: MrErvine is not trying to defend the formula that exists. MrErvine is trying to defend a greater degree of inclusion than the amendment would allow if it stood on its own. When I and the other members left the Standing Orders Committee, there was no formula. But the one now in front of me is one hell — excuse me, MrPresiding Officer — a quare bit better than the one put forward by the First Minister (Designate).

Mr Mark Durkan: That is the point that MrErvine made last time. This is becoming like an advertising break — the same advertisements each time.
If Members follow the amendments to delete these provisions, they will not be foregoing in any way the commitment to ensure that all parties are represented on these committees.
On Standing Order53 we had particular concerns about the make-up of the numbers. I believe that there are more fundamental questions about Standing Order53 than whether the numbers are right. It purports to carry out paragraphs11 to 13 of StrandOne of the agreement, which in many ways was a special procedure to provide what might be termed "an equality reading" or "an equality hearing" and for the possible appointment of a committee, almost on an ad hoc basis.
We were influential in having that aspect included in the agreement, and it was not intended as the basis for a permanent Standing Committee of this nature. Depending on the issue which might be referred to that procedure — and it might be a gender-equality issue, a race-equality issue or a communal-equality issue — and the policy area involved, such as health, employment or social services, parties might want to appoint different people to be on that committee to test and probe the issue concerned.
Given the sensitivity of the procedure and that it is there as one of the safeguards highlighted in the agreement, we find the make-up disproportionate. On the current basis there would be four Nationalists out of a committee of 14. That committee could be bigger to include more party members, particularly for the conduct of hearings, which the procedure allows for. So there are more fundamental, and entirely legitimate, matters of concern in relation to some of these issues. It is not a matter of trying to exclude anybody. These amendments do not purport to exclude anybody; they are aimed at ensuring that more people can be included, including people from the larger parties.
One final amendment that I want to address is amendment78 — again in relation to the Public Accounts Committee. As DenisHaughey said, we believe that no one who belongs to any party that is represented on the Executive should chair the Public Accounts Committee. We suggested that several times during the talks.
We are not sure about the restrictions in terms of junior Ministers. We have no problem with the party of the junior Minister at the Department of Finance and Personnel’s being precluded; we do have a problem with a blanket exclusion of all junior Ministers.
First, we should not presume that the committee Chairs are going to be appointed after junior Ministers. It may well be that Chairs will be appointed before any junior Ministers are. Secondly, junior Ministers could be appointed on a different basis from that which many people seem to be expecting, or are hinting at. I do not want there to be any suggestion that it might occur to the First and Deputy First Ministers to try to muzzle the Chairman of a Public Accounts Committee by dangling the offer of a junior Ministry at one of his Colleagues.

Lord Alderdice: I fear that I may have to be the muzzle on this particular occasion.
I sense that most of the arguments are now beginning to come round for a reprise. I will take the last two Members currently on the list, and then we will move to a vote on this section.

Mr Robert McCartney: I want to make a number of general observations about what has been going on against the whole background of various committees. Assemblyman Durkan referred to ProfMcWilliams in terms of "sneer and smear". Other Members have talked of suspicions about what the major parties would do. I think we should examine the basis for this air of uncertainty and suspicion about what is going on.
In order to do that, we must fundamentally appreciate that this is not a parliamentary democracy with one party, or a coalition of parties, in Government and other parties, with substantial numbers of representatives out of Government who will act as the Opposition, who will probe, enquire into, publicly examine and attack what the Government are doing.
What we have here is a sort of political Caliban — a creature created for specific purposes. It is called consensual government. It means that all of the major parties have representatives in the Executive, which is the Government. Therefore, where do we look for either the machinery or the people who, as ProfMcWilliams quite rightly pointed out, will constitute the Opposition? Who will enquire into whether the Government are governing with integrity and probity and if their policies are valid or simply expedient?
This is where the problem arises. Under this scheme that function is to be carried out by a series of scrutiny committees. However, the scrutiny committees, by virtue of the numbers of the majority parties, will contain, in most cases, an overwhelming majority of those actually in Government. They will contain a relative minority of those parties who, not being in Government, not being in the Executive and, by their numbers, having circumscribed representation on these scrutiny committees, will not really be, if I understand ProfMcWilliams’s remarks correctly, in a position to do the work of an effective Opposition, which is to ensure that the Government, whether they be a consensual Executive or an elected majority, are doing what they ought to do.
There is therefore a suspicion — and it has been there from the very beginning, through all the discussions at the early meetings of the Standing Orders Committee — that this place could ultimately resolve itself into an Executive that, broadly speaking, could do whatever it wanted, and that the role of this Assembly, in its plenary session, whether through question, answer, speeches or any other form of examination, was to question the Executive about its performance and what it was doing.
I think that much of the anxiety and questioning stems from that fundamental dilemma.
Assemblyman DenisHaughey, who chaired in a fair and exemplary fashion the Standing Orders Committee, said that this is a unique place. It is so unique, he suggested, that the Opposition will consist of Back-Benchers of all the parties that are not in the Government. Here again is a curious residual appendix of parliamentary government. The Assembly has parties and Whips.
PeterRobinson’s fair suggestion and amendment this morning was that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should be the subject of a scrutiny committee. There was a worthwhile debate in which the arguments were cogently and explicitly deployed. I have no doubt that anyone listening to that debate would, if he had been allowed a free vote, come down heavily in favour of the proposition. There was no answer as to why there should be 10Statutory Committees to scrutinise the 10Ministries, but no special scrutiny committee to scrutinise the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers, who will exercise substantial Executive powers on a wide range of important issues. Assemblyman SammyWilson listed those. That was the crux of the matter.
What happened in this marvellous place, in which independent, free-thinking Back-Benchers would exercise the powerful independence of mind and intellect that they would bring like lasers to bear on the problems that confronted them? What we saw today was one of the worst features of the party system. Member after Member said no or yes, and I venture to suggest that many of them had no good idea of exactly why they were saying no or yes to a particular amendment — except that some sort of tribal drum played by the Whips had sent the message "This is a no" or "This is a yes." [Interruption] I do not need a drum.
When addressing Members in, I hope, direct, frank and open terms, I appealed to their independence of mind. I suggested that they should direct their thoughts and their minds to the value of the arguments and to the persuasiveness of points of view. I asked them to allow that arguments from places for which they had no natural empathy, might, by their good sense and logic and by their comparison of one committee with another in terms of the functions that they were to serve be persuasive enough to accept.

Mr Mark Durkan: I hear what the Member says. Does he accept that those of us who voted the way we did today support section7 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee? Under the heading "Scrutiny of Central Functions" on page 8, the report states
"Concern was expressed … that important discrete executive functions of the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would not, under current legislation, be subject to scrutiny of a Statutory Committee. The Committee recommends that this matter be addressed as soon as possible by the Assembly."
We stand by that.

Mr Robert McCartney: I am suggesting that there was absolutely nothing of any consequence in the amendment that was different from the agreement’s provisions for the structure of the 10Statutory Committees. It was essentially the same. Why should any shield, discrete or otherwise, be afforded to the First and Deputy First Ministers that is not afforded to Ministers who will be responsible to the other scrutiny committees? What secret or discrete behaviour of theirs should be any more deserving of protection than the functions of any other Minister?
No real argument of substance was advanced to deal with it, and let me touch on the question of the Public Accounts Committee.
The whole basis of any accounts committee, the whole basis of a club, a council or any other institution where you have auditors, is that the auditors who are checking the books are totally and completely independent from those who are responsible either for the decisions or for the arithmetic that produced those books. That is why the Chairman and Deputy Chairman should be completely independent from those who have an input either by policy or actuarial function into creating those figures. But we are now told "Oh, no it would be all right to have somebody who was a junior Minister chairing this committee." That is scandalously wrong.

Mr Denis Haughey: Will the hon Member give way.

Mr Robert McCartney: I am not giving way. In fact, my time is up.

Lord Alderdice: I am afraid that that is indeed the case.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I wish to support the arguments that have been put forward this afternoon for the inclusion of the smaller parties in the very important and non-Statutory Committees.
The debate we have had here on a number of issues today will rightly cause alarm to those who see themselves as forming the Opposition in the Assembly. This morning’s debate on the scrutiny of the First Minister and the Deputy First Ministers’ Department showed no great desire for those important functions to be scrutinised.
The debate we have had this afternoon, especially where it has touched on the Public Accounts Committee and the Equality Committee, has indicated once again that there is an unwillingness to have the full inclusion of smaller parties, who would regard themselves as the Opposition here. Indeed, the vote we had this morning on the ministerial appointments also showed an unwillingness, especially on the parts of the large pro-agreement parties, to countenance making it easy for anyone who is likely to present opposition to those who signed up to the agreement and who will be exercising its working out.
For those reasons, the debate that we are having now is very important. The reasons given by members of the smaller parties for their inclusion need to be borne in mind and heeded by all in the Assembly.
I listened to what was said by the First Minister (Designate) about the need for proportionality — he is not here, so I will not put his blood pressure through the roof unless he is watching this on television, and I do not wish to incite him to break Standing Order57. I listened to what he said about proportionality.
NigelDodds has pointed out that he did not appear to be too concerned about proportionality in the highest committee when he was signing up to the agreement, the highest committee being the Executive Committee of the House. Indeed, when he had a second bite at the cherry, he went for a number of Ministers that would ensure that the Unionist majority in the House was not reflected on the Executive Committee. I am not sure about his commitment to proportionality, and the suggestion which was made by MrHaughey that we could perhaps raise the number — and it was only a suggestion, it is not a commitment — in these committees to enable us to have sufficient people that would allow proportionality and enable the smaller parties to be represented runs totally against all of the arguments that were put forward by his own members in the Standing Orders Committee.
I have some sympathy with the argument, and the smaller parties saw the sense of it too. It was argued that if committees were enlarged, it would impose an undue burden on the larger parties because they would have so many positions to fill that they could not fill them without overworking their Members. In fairness to the smaller parties, that is one of their reasons for accepting, albeit grudgingly, that the Statutory Committees should have only 11members.

Mr Denis Haughey: The argument is being misrepresented by MrWilson, although not deliberately I am sure. The original proposition was that all committees should have 11members. Representatives of the smaller parties sought a compromise, to which MrErvine referred earlier, and suggested that, because of their nature, some Standing Committees required representation from all parties. My recollection is that we agreed that the composition of some Standing Committees should be in accordance with the formula for the present Standing Orders Committee. That means that it would reflect proportionality and involve all parties. Does the Member accept that?

Mr Sammy Wilson: I accept the first proposition, that the Statutory Committees should have 11members. I also accept that non-Statutory Committees should be constituted to ensure that the smaller parties have representation. It was said that if committees were as large as the present Standing Orders Committee, the Ulster Unionist Party would be required to put four of its members on each one. Therein lies the difficulty. The Standing Orders require the Ulster Unionist Party to provide only two Members for each committee.
Having argued that he could not provide all the necessary people, the First Minister (Designate) now says "Let us increase them." That is somewhat odd, and it would mean eight additional places on the four committees for Ulster Unionist Members. If we vote against the Standing Orders, the smaller parties will not be sure of representation. It is a case of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. The smaller parties, and those who wish to protect their position, would be better to vote for the Standing Orders to remain in their present form. We must ensure that those parties that will be outside the Executive and which will form the Opposition are not excluded from these important committees.
I thought that the present formulation was accepted by everyone on the Standing Orders Committee. The smaller parties compromised on the Statutory Committees, and the larger parties compromised on the others. It would be a display of bad faith for Members to vote against that compromise between the two sides.

Lord Alderdice: We now come to the approval of the Standing Orders and the vote on the amendments in this second, larger section on committees.
We start with amendmentNo62 and proceed on through, in order, to amendmentNo76. I remind Members of the situation in respect of amendmentsNo3A to E and 4, 7, 8, 9 and10 when we come to consider them.
Standing Order 45 (Membership of Statutory Committees)
Amendment(No62) made: 
Standing Order 45, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 46 (Overlap of Statutory Committee Business)
Amendment (No53) made: 
"and may invite the other Committee to carry out the consideration of any stated issue and provide it with a draft report". —[MrPRobinson]
Standing Order 46, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 47 (Non-Statutory Committees) agreed to.
Standing Order 48 (Service on Committees) agreed to.
Standing Order 49 (Committee Members Voting in the Chamber)
Amendment (No 52) made: 
", other than by leave of the Committee that he shall not do so," —[MrPRobinson]
Standing Order49, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 50 (Sub-Committees)
Amendment (No 51) made: 
"Such Committees shall, in as far as is practicable, reflect the party strengths in the Assembly". —[MrPRobinson]
Standing Order50, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Orders 51 (Committee on Procedures); 52 (Business Committee); 53 (Conformity with Equality Requirements — Special Committee on); 54 (Public Accounts Committee); and 55 (Committee on Standards and Privileges)

Lord Alderdice: We now come to amendment 3A, with which we will consider amendments 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E. I remind Members that if amendments 3A to 3E are approved we will not move to consideration of amendments4, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which are all subsumed in the former.
Amendments (Nos 3A to 3E) proposed: 
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 56; Noes 35.
AYES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, PJ Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, John Kelly, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, MrsMary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, MrsJoan Carson, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, RtHon David Trimble.
NOES
Nationalist
Nil.
Unionist
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, RevWilliam McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
MrsEileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, MsMonica McWilliams, MsJane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 91Members, including 33 Nationalists and 51Unionists. Of Nationalist votes, 100% were in favour. Of the Unionist votes, 45.9% were in favour. Of the total votes, 61.5% were in favour. The amendments are therefore carried.
Amendments accordingly agreed to.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, it is merely an oversight on your part that you gave the percentage of Unionist votes but did not give the figures.

Lord Alderdice: It is the percentages that matter for the vote, but for those who wish to know the numbers the Ayes were 33Nationalists and 23 Unionists, and the Noes were 28 Unionists and 7 Others.
Amendments Nos 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 not moved.
Standing Order 51, as amended (amendment No3A), agreed to.
Standing Order 52 (Business Committee)

Lord Alderdice: Amendment No86: moved or not moved.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Moved.
Amendment (No.86) made: 
[Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: I pointed out quite some time ago that mobile phones should not be used in the Chamber — either for calls in or for calls out.
Amendment (No5) proposed:

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, apart from the fact that Nationalists seem to ignore your calls and just go on with their business as if we were in the middle of a bookie’s shop, I wonder — [Interruption]

Mr Danny O'Connor: rose.

Lord Alderdice: A Member cannot make a point of order while another Member is already making one.

Mr Peter Robinson: We are having difficulty with this amendment because those who put it down have not explained it. Is it possible for us to know if, by the amendment, they intend to exclude the Speaker from the Business Committee, or if the Speaker is to be a member of the Business Committee, but not in its Chair? It would be difficult to support an amendment which would mean that the Speaker would not know what the business was going to be. However, if the Speaker were a member of the committee, but not in the Chair, that would be reasonable.

Lord Alderdice: I take the question that you have raised, but I cannot permit any further debate at this point. It is possible for Members to put down amendments and to move amendments but not to give any guidance on them. Whether that is a good idea is another matter. This is what has been done on this occasion, and I am in no position to do anything about it, other than proceed with the Division.

Mr Danny O'Connor: MrPRobinson made reference to Members on this side of the House standing. Had he bothered to look round, he would have seen MrSWilson and MrShannon engaged in conversation behind him.

Lord Alderdice: A considerable number of Members were out of order, and some continue to be so, including the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee.
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 24; Noes 67.
AYES
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, MrsJoan Carson, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, RtHon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, DrAlasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mrs Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, RevWilliam McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
MrsEileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, MsMonica McWilliams, MsJane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 91Members: 34 Nationalists, all against; and 50Unionists, 24 of whom voted for and 26 against. The Ayes were 26·4%. I declare the amendment lost.
Question accordingly negatived.
Standing Order 52, as amended (amendments Nos3B and 86), agreed to.
Standing Order 53 (Conformity with Equality Requirements — Special Committee On)
Amendment (No 82) propsed: 
"CONFORMITY WITH EQUALITY REQUIREMENTS — SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON" and insert "SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON CONFORMITY AND EQUALITY REQUIREMENTS". —[MrPRobinson]
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 66; Noes 21
AYES
Nationalist
MsBairbre de Brún, MsMichelle Gildernew, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, MsDara O’Hagan, MrsSue Ramsey.
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, MrsJoan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, RevWilliam McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
MrsEileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, MsJane Morrice, Sean Neeson.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
None.
Other
None.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 87Members. Of Nationalists, there voted 10 for and 21 against, which is 32.2% for. Of Unionists, there voted 50 for and none against, which is 100% for. The total vote for is 75.9%. However, not having achieved 40% of the Nationalist vote, I declare the amendment lost.
Question accordingly negatived.

Lord Alderdice: Amendment No81: moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Moved.
Amendment (No 81) made: 
Amendment (No 80) made:

Lord Alderdice: Amendment No79: moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Moved.
Amendment (No 79) made:

Lord Alderdice: Members must forgive me if I feel a sense of urgency to push the business on at this point. It is partly a matter of hunger and partly one of obviating bedsores. [Laughter]
Standing Order 53, as amended (amendments Nos3C, 81, 80 and 79), agreed to.
Standing Order 54 (Public Accounts Committee)

Lord Alderdice: Amendment No78: moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: To be moved in the terms that I read out, and not as it stands on the Marshalled List.

Mr Denis Haughey: Mr Robinson indicated when moving the amendment that he might be prepared to consider an alternative wording to make it consistent with that of other Standing Orders. Has he given any further thought to that?

Mr Peter Robinson: I will be happy to do that in the Standing Orders Committee and report back on the issue.

Lord Alderdice: I gave a ruling that this paragraph would not fall under the amendment to the report of yesterday because this was not a matter of tidying up the wording or making it consistent with others. This would make a substantive difference to the meaning and could not therefore fall under the amendment of yesterday. Though the Member undertook to look at the amendment, I cannot actually take manuscript amendments of that order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: It was never actually clear to me during the brief debate on this amendment what the effect of the amendment would be. What has been read out now makes it clear but creates another problem. If the amendment were carried so that neither the Chairperson nor the Deputy Chairperson of a committee could be of the same political party as any Minister or junior Minister, in view of what we hope will be the inclusive nature of the Administration, it would be impossible to implement this rule: Standing Order 47(3) has been approved, and it says that Chairs and Deputy Chairs should be appointed through the d’Hondt formula, and it will not be possible to carry that out if this amendment is agreed.

Lord Alderdice: I have to say that I understand. This is not a point of order. This is a question of whether or not the Standing Orders make sense, but that is not a point of order, strange as it may seem. That is an argument for voting one way or t’other, and Members must decide on which way they vote. I cannot take that as a point of order. I trust that Members are clear from what was said by the Member who proposed the amendment, from the correction he made during his speech and from my own repeated attempts to make the wording clear.
Amendment (No 78) proposed: 
Question
Standing Order 54, as amended (amendment No3D), agreed to.
Standing Order 55 (Committee on Standards and Privileges)

Lord Alderdice: Amendment 77: moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Moved.
Amendment (No 77) made: 
Standing Order 55, as amended (amendments Nos3E and 77), agreed to.
Standing Order 56 (Audit Committee)

Lord Alderdice: Amendment No76: moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Moved.
Amendment (No76) made: 
"A Committee shall be established" and insert "The Assembly, by resolution, shall establish a Committee". —[MrPRobinson]
Standing Order 56, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Alderdice: We have now come to the end of that group. We have three further groups to consider tonight involving 14 amendments and 14 Standing Orders. We also have an Adjournment debate. It is unlikely that we can deal with that without some sustenance, and I therefore ask the leave of the House for a suspension of one hour.

Ms Jane Morrice: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It would be appropriate to congratulate AlasdairMcDonnell on the birth of his daughter.

Lord Alderdice: Whether that is a matter of order or of disorder in the McDonnell household is not clear.
The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 6.06pm until 7.01 pm.
Good Order

Lord Alderdice: We move to amendment No 75 in the name of MrPeterRobinson. We will also consider the other amendments in the group.

Mr Peter Robinson: Amendment No 75 is simply a tidying-up amendment that makes Standing Order57(1) a bit easier to read and understand.
Amendment No 74 is consequential upon amendment No 75.
Amendment No 73 is my doing the Women’s Coalition work, under commission, I hope, of putting in "/she" — as opposed to "banshee" — in the third line.
Amendment 72 — I found this a rather strange one. I worked it out that if Members are not allowed in the public areas, the Assembly Chamber, the lobbies, the dining areas, the Committee Rooms, the party rooms and the Great Hall, then they are not allowed into the Building at all, and it might be better to say exactly that.
One would need to take a circuitous route up the fire escape and through the window in order to reach one’s own office and to avoid those areas. In the House of Commons — and I have some experience of this — when a Member is suspended he is put out through the front gate, and he does not get back in until the period of suspension is over. If I am to be suspended from this House, I want it to be done properly and to be required to leave the Building.
Amendment No 71 will allow Standing Order58(4) to say what I believe it was intended to say: that visitors will not be permitted to take into the Public Gallery of the Assembly any mobile telephone, tape recorder, briefcase or large bag. I assume that visitors will be permitted to bring these items into other parts of the Building on occasions.
This concludes the amendments in my name in this section.

Lord Alderdice: I have had no indication of any Members wishing to speak on this group of amendments, and therefore we shall proceed to the approval of the relevant Standing Orders and amendments.
Standing Order 57 (Order in the Assembly)

Lord Alderdice: The first amendment is No 75 standing in the name of MrPeterRobinson. Is amendment No 75 moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: Moved.
Amendment (No 75) made: 
Amendment (No 74) made: 
Amendment (No 73) made: 
Amendment (No 72) made: 
"include any part of Parliament Buildings." —[Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 57, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 58 (Visitors to the Assembly)
Amendment (No71) made: 
Standing Order58, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 59 (Visitors to Committee) agreed to.
Standing Order 60 (Keeper of the House) agreed to.

Standards and Privilege

Lord Alderdice: We move to the section on Standards and Privileges. The first of these amendments is No70, which stands in the name of MrPRobinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: The amendment to Standing Order61, amendment No70, deals with pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature. In the way it is framed it relates directly to a Member’s personal pecuniary interest or benefit. The amendment seeks to widen that to the direct family circle of the Member. This is in line with the provision for district councillors in the Local Government Act 1972.
The standard required of Assembly Members should not be lower than that required of district council members. I hope this is satisfactory. In terms of the relationship, I understand it to be mother/father, daughter/son, brother/sister and husband/wife. There may be some other relationship that I am not aware of — perhaps, I am better not knowing what that might be.
The amendment to Standing Order 62 addresses the issue of how a breach of privilege may be dealt with. There are particular difficulties in the type of structures that exist in the Assembly. If this Standing Order were to remain in its present form, there could be vetoes exercised against a Committee on Standards and Privileges looking at an issue relating to a Member. A petition of concern, which requires a cross-community vote, could be applied to Standing Order 62, giving rise to vetoes.
If an issue is deemed by the Speaker to amount to a prima facie case of breach of privilege, it should automatically go to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Speaker may make a judgement that the prima facie case is there. If it is, it is considered, a report comes back and the Assembly can decide if it will accept the recommendations of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
The only other issue is the three days’ notice. I think that it is inevitable —

Mr Denis Haughey: May I ask the Member to clarify the meaning of the word "immediate" in amendmentNo70. Can he clarify what is meant by "immediate relative"? Does this term have a legal meaning? I have taken legal advice on this, and I am told that the term "immediate relative" does not have a clear legal meaning. I am entirely in sympathy with the amendment that the Member is proposing. However, it is necessary that we clarify this from a legal point of view.

Mr Peter Robinson: In my amendment No70, I defined an "immediate relative" as a father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, husband or wife. I have no other suggestions. I believe that that is what the term is understood to mean in local government. If anybody wants to confess to any other immediate relative —

Mr Denis Haughey: While I accept that the term "immediate relative" is commonly understood in the way that MrRobinson describes it, is it legally sufficient to define the issue that is before the House? Another term might be more suitable for that purpose.

Mr Peter Robinson: There is an opportunity for consistent language to be put in at a later stage by the legal draftsmen. However, we are not debating a legal document in the sense of a Bill. If Members clearly understand what is meant, they will know whether they are breaching the rule. The term is commonly understood, and I think that it is understood by Members. If the Committee wants to add an interpretative section at some later stage, that would not need to be passed by the Assembly now. An interpretation added to the Standing Orders might be useful.
I spoke about the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the three days’ notice. It is likely that if some substantial issue is raised, Members will not wait three days before giving voice to it in the Assembly. In a ragged situation one Member may play ball and take the matter to the Speaker. The Speaker will consider it for three days before the matter is dealt with by the Assembly, and somebody else may raise the issue here. There is a contradiction in the Standing Order. Clearly, 62(1) requires three days’ notice, but the final sentence of 62(3) talks about
"a matter of privilege is raised of which the Speaker had not received due notice".
If there is a requirement for three days’ notice, he would have received due notice. I am not sure which element of the Standing Order I should be addressing. That is why I have tabbed two amendments, one of which seeks to change the wording to "sufficient notice", which would allow the Speaker to make a judgement. If he has not had sufficient time to consider the matter, he can say so when it is raised in the Assembly. At a later date he can rule as to whether there is a prima facie case.
This is precisely what happens in the House of Commons, and I have some experience of it. I went to the Speaker one morning; and the matter was raised in the House that afternoon. She asked for time to consider it, and three or four days later she responded. That seems perfectly satisfactory. The Member gets the matter off his chest and places it with the Speaker. That results in all the legal advice that is required.
The key element of this set of amendments is the proposal to move away from having a vote in the Assembly to determine whether the matter goes to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The worst possible scenario is where it is alleged that a Member has done something he should not have done. When the matter is brought to the Assembly the Speaker determines that there is a prima facie case, but it can be voted down in the Assembly by a party of sufficient size applying the petition of concern, thus preventing the matter from going forward. That would be a most unsatisfactory situation. It would be better by far for every prima facie case to go to a committee in which each Member can argue his case. That consequentially requires the deletion of sub-paragraph (4) by my amendment No66.

Lord Alderdice: I have received no requests to speak in regard to this group of amendments, and therefore I will proceed to decisions on them and on the Standing Orders in the group.
Standing Order 61 (Members’ Interests)
Amendment (No 70) made: 
"whether such pecuniary interest or benefit is held by the Member or an immediate relative." —[Mr P Robinson]
Standing Order 61, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 62 (Privilege)
Amendment (No 69) made: 
Amendment (No 67) made: 
"refer the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges." —[Mr P Robinson]
Amendment (No 68) made: 
Amendment (No 66) made: 
Standing Order 62, as amended, agreed to.
Other Orders

Lord Alderdice: We now move on to the last section in the compendium of Standing Orders — 63 to 71 — and amendments Nos 65, 64, 87 and 63.
Amendment No 65 stands in the name of MrPeter Robinson. Before calling MrRobinson may I remind Members that he advised us earlier of a typographical error in this amendment. It should read
"Standing Order 66(6), on line 4, after ‘to’ insert ‘the news media for ’ ’’ .

Mr Peter Robinson: Amendment 65 is just a grammatical change; it should not create any controversy. I suspect that in this band of Standing Orders, the controversy might come elsewhere.
In relation to Amendment No 64, I ask Members to think very carefully about putting in Standing Order 69. We have seen the amount of time and effort that Members have put in to providing themselves with Standing Orders over the last couple of days.

Mr Denis Haughey: Before the Member moves on to Amendment 64, may I clarify Amendment 65? If paragraph (6) of Standing Order 66 were to be amended as MrRobinson suggests, it seems to me that it would not read particularly well. It would read "that are from time to time assigned to the news media for their use for the purposes of committee business". Is that how the Member wishes it to read?

Mr Peter Robinson: At the present time I am not sure what the Standing Order is supposed to read. It says — I had better read it from the very beginning to get it in context —
"Chairpersons of Committees and those acting in their stead under these Standing Orders shall, in relation to the news media, exercise the same powers as the Speaker within those places and precincts of the Assembly that are from time to time assigned for their use for the purposes of Committee business."
In terms of the Amendment, it therefore reads "assigned to the news media for their use". This is a section dealing with the news media — Standing Order 66. I assumed that is what the Committee was saying, is it not?

Mr Denis Haughey: It seems that the media do not have any function in terms of committee business. That is a small point but —

Mr Peter Robinson: I am at a total loss as to why this paragraph is in the section headed ‘News Media’. I am happy to give way if someone can tell me why, if the news media do not have any function, we have a Standing Order giving them a function. There will be Committees that will allow the media to be present. I would have thought that they, therefore, have a purpose, if not a function, in relation to Committees.

Mr Denis Haughey: I hate to appear niggling, but if it were to read "for the purposes of covering Committee business", that might be better.

Mr Peter Robinson: If there were a mechanism for allowing that to be the outcome, I would be perfectly content to accept it. However, it could, with a generous interpretation, fall under the original amendment. If that is the general wish of the House I am sure such flexibility might be accorded.
With regard to the suspension of Standing Orders, it seems absurd that we put all the time and effort into preparing and deciding Standing Orders, and then at a whim allow all of the rights and protections that are built into them simply to be swept to the side because a group gets together and decides that it does not like what they say and are going to do whatever Standing Orders would not otherwise allow it to do.
That does not seem to be the proper way to conduct business. It would not be acceptable anywhere else other than a district council — I have often used it. Take it from somebody who has used it on many occasions to great benefit, while in a majority, that if the provision is left in the Standing Orders it can be used in the future. As MrWeir said earlier, no one knows who might be in the majority in the future. So while it may satisfy some people today, it may not satisfy them four years down the road.

Mr Derek Hussey: With regard to the suggested Standing Order, does Mr Robinson not recognise that there is a requirement for cross-community support?

Mr Peter Robinson: Yes, I do. I also recognise how cross-community support could be gained by a stitch-up in the Assembly, particularly in circumstances where parties with a common aim are in government and decide that they want to overcome some local difficulty. It is not out of the range of possibilities that a couple of parties could decide that they want to do business in a different way than they are supposed to be conducting it under the Standing Orders. It would be wrong for us to spend all this time deciding what the appropriate Standing Orders are to be and then to put in a provision that allows them to be thrown out of the window. I hope that the Assembly will think twice before it goes down that road.
In relation to the Assembly Commission, amendment No63, which is in my name, is simply a correction to get the plurality in line. There is also a comma that needs to be removed, but that will come into the general tidy-up.
Some concern has again been expressed about the size of the Commission. If someone were to ask me if it would function better with a smaller number rather than with a larger number, I would say that it would operate better with a smaller number. And if someone were to ask me if this Assembly would operate better with 78Members rather than with 108Members, I would say that the smaller number would be better. But people say that it is important to have the larger number for the sake of making it more inclusive. I thought that the Executive should have had seven members but it had to be ten in order to make it more inclusive — I am not even sure if it does that.
The idea behind increasing the number was to bring more people in to share responsibility, and the Standing Orders Committee has responded by trying to increase that number. I do not know how it decided on the number or the thought processes that were at work. Given the minute of the meeting, it seems to have been a sudden decision on the part of the Committee to make the membership 11.
There is a real difficulty in this respect because even though some of us may think that 11 is not the right number, I do not think that we can change it because there is no amendment down to change it. The only option open to us is not to pass the Standing Order even though the Act requires us to pass it. The Act clearly says, in Section 40, that we have to prescribe the number of members for the Commission in the Standing Orders.
It could be argued that we might prescribe the number at some time in the future. It could also be argued that we could make a change if it were thought that the number was not working very well. But it will constitute a gaping hole in our Standing Orders if we do not do what we are required to do by law, namely, to have a Standing Order that contains the number of members for the Commission.
I hope that all of the amendments that I have proposed will be supported by the Assembly. We have to accept the number on the Commission, at least until such times as an alternative is offered, because no amendment is down that would let us make a change.

Lord Alderdice: Mr Robinson and to some extent the joint Chairman, Mr Haughey, have suggested that I give a ruling on the question of an amendment to sub-paragraph 6 of Standing Order 66, on whether some slight modification to the wording would accommodate an agreement.
There are two major problems about this. The first problem is procedural. We do not have a mechanism, as I indicated earlier, for taking amendments of any substantial sort that move outside the parameters agreed in the amendment to item 3 yesterday. But there is a more substantial problem and that is that the amendment completely changes the grammatical sense and reference within the sub-paragraph.
The subject of the sentence is "Chairpersons of Committees", and the verb is "exercising". When it comes to "their use" the possessive pronoun is used. Does "their use" refer to use by Committees and the Chairpersons of Committees? Or does it refer to use by the news media?
It seems to me that if this sub-clause is left as it is, the possessive pronoun "their" refers to chairpersons of committees and the word "use" — of the rooms or whatever — refers to use for the purposes of committee business by the chairpersons and their committees as distinct from use by the news media. However, if the Assembly were to accept the amendment by Mr Robinson, the use of whatever facilities would be available to the news media for the purposes of Committee business.
It seems not an unreasonable interpretation of the grammar — albeit a rather opaque grammar — to say that the amendment would actually change the sense of the Standing Order. Whether it would change the meaning of it, in terms of how it was acted out, is another matter. But I have to make it clear that it would not be possible for me to accept the change as it has been suggested. First of all, to do so would be procedurally incorrect and, secondly, it would effect a change of meaning in the amendment. To keep the amendment as it is means that it refers to the use of a room by the committee; to accept the amendment means that it refers to the use of a room for the purposes of news-media coverage by the news media, which is something different.
It is not for me to rule on which makes sense or on which is the best decision to take. I am simply trying to clarify it as best I can, and that is my ruling.

Mr Peter Robinson: I look for clarification from either the joint Chairmen or the Committee members. Standing Order 66 (News Media) starts with references to the Speaker and his powers and role. It then deals with committees and states that Chairmen would have the same authority as the Speaker.
The Standing Order specifies the Speaker’s role in relation to the news media, and where its representatives would be placed. There is no doubt that the Standing Orders Committee intended that the Chairmen of committees would be able to instruct the media on the facilities that were available for their use in covering the proceedings. That is the end result and if anyone can tell us how to get there I would be quite content.

Mr Denis Haughey: Will the proposer of the amendment consider not moving it? I sense that the House is entirely in sympathy with his proposal, but there is a question in relation to the wording. If the amendment is not moved, the House could later consider a more exact form of words that would make the intention clear.

Mr Peter Robinson: If I do not move the amendment, are we satisfied with a Standing Order that is different from what is intended?

Lord Alderdice: I can give only the ruling that I have already given as to my understanding of what the grammar, inelegant though it may be, purports to represent. Clarification may be required, but at present that must be done elsewhere rather than in the Chamber. If the amendment is moved, Members will have to decide whether to support it. Of course, the proposer may choose not to move it when the time comes.

Mr Denis Haughey: I have not had a chance to discuss this matter with Mr Cobain, but insofar as I am able to interpret his view, I think that the Committee would look at it entirely in sympathy with the spirit of Mr Robinson’s proposal, and would seek a more exact form of words that will accomplish the intended purpose.

Lord Alderdice: As the debate continues it may be possible for Members to clarify this issue in the Chamber or perhaps behind the Speaker’s Chair. After that, MrRobinson can decide whether he wishes to move the amendment.
I call Mr Cedric Wilson on amendment No87, which stands in his name.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Amendment No87 relates to Standing Order 70. That Standing Order states
"Members may speak in the language of their choice".
My amendment is that we should leave out Standing Order 70 and insert the following new Standing Order:
"The language of this Assembly shall be English."
I want to make it clear and well understood that the amendment is not an attempt to cause mischief or to prohibit the use of the Irish language in the Chamber. It is not the use of Irish that concerns me but rather its abuse, and that concerns many Members. I refer to the Irish language because this is what we are considering. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order

Mr Cedric Wilson: We are debating whether it is desirable for large sections of our proceedings to be in Irish. A few Members, including MrShannon, the Member for Strangford, have voted using the Ulster-Scots word "Nah". With that exception, I do not think that any Member on this side has used a language other than English.

Mr Peter Robinson: A dead language was used by Mr Close yesterday.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I bow to Mr Robinson’s greater knowledge. For serious debate in this Chamber, it is true to say that the language used and understood by all Members and, indeed, those in the Public Gallery has been, to a large extent, English. My amendment is not meant to try to prohibit the use of any other language in this Chamber. I have no desire to do that, nor do I believe it would be possible under international law to do so. The only language that I want to see prohibited is bad language, and, fortunately, we have had little of that here.
I want to stress why I put forward this amendment. If such an amendment is not made, there will be implications in respect of time and costs that this House may be asked to underwrite in the future.

Lord Alderdice: Order. Whatever language is being spoken, it is only proper that one Member is speaking it at any one time.

Mr Cedric Wilson: The treaty that was signed in Dublin this week by the Secretary of State and the Dublin authorities makes it clear, in the section on language, that the British Government will facilitate and encourage Irish in speech and writing in public and private life where there is appropriate demand.
My contention is that there is not an appropriate demand for the use of an alternative language — particularly the Irish language — in this Chamber. There will be a cost implication if Members endorse Standing Order70 which states
"Members may speak in the language of their choice."
As sure as day follows night, I am certain that if the proposal that allows Members to speak in any language is adopted, it will be only a short time until the Assembly is faced with having to provide simultaneous translations. It will have to employ additional people, and there has already been a public outcry at the prospect of spending a large sum of money employing four people to translate the comments of those Nationalists who have been using the Irish language into the transcripts of the proceedings.
There is a possibility that there will be a greater cost. We could be writing a blank cheque by endorsing proposals that allow Members to speak in the language of their choice. In future, there may be a demand on the Assembly — and it may not be possible to resist such a demand — to use languages other than English on all documents and official forms. I am certain that Sinn Féin will stick to their guns — [Laughter] and insist on that. The European Courts may even decide that the language they chose to use in the Chamber is legitimate, and, therefore, all the Assembly’s business would have to be translated, as is the case in Wales.
I flag this up as a genuine concern. Members should exercise caution on this matter.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Member agree that the Standing Order, as it is currently framed, does not make provision for additional resources for the Irish language? Does the Member see any imbalance in the treaties which were signed in the Irish Republic this week by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and MrAndrews in respect of how the development of the Ulster-Scots language is to be treated?

Mr Cedric Wilson: I thank MrPaisleyJnr for that intervention. Indeed, it is glaringly obvious, in this document and in many other documents, that prime importance is given to the promotion of the Irish language, and those who support the use of Ulster-Scots are right to say that there is no parity of esteem and no equality agenda in this regard. It concerns me that promotion of the Ulster-Scots language is being used as a red herring by those who wish to promote the Irish language.

Mr Denis Haughey: I would like to ask the Member how he thinks he will secure parity of esteem for the Ulster-Scots language by means of an amendment which states
"The language of this Assembly shall be English."

Mr Cedric Wilson: I have made no attempt to prevent Members from speaking in whatever language they choose. Mr Shannon may, at some stage, confound us all by making a speech in Ulster-Scots. However, what I am saying is that this is not essential in the context of the Standing Orders which we are considering. If I could be certain that there would be no cost, in terms of finance or of time, I would not object to the wording as it stands. Nonetheless, I feel that this is a very serious issue, and one that will have major implications for the Assembly in the months to come. I urge Members, therefore, to support this amendment.

Dr Ian Adamson: I would like to thank MrCWilson for giving me the opportunity to speak on this matter. Ulster sits at the north-eastern corner of Ireland, facing Scotland across a narrow sea. The characteristics of her language, since the dawn of human history, have been moulded by population movements, large and small, between the two islands. Therefore, we have had a wide range of dialects in the northern part of the island, including dialects of Gaelic and of the older Scottish tongue. When I read the part of the Belfast Agreement which deals with rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity, I was delighted with these words:
"All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and" —
equally important, of course —
"the languages of the various ethnic communities."
Ulster-Scots has been particularly important to me because of my love for the literature of Scotland, from the times of the old makars, who created the older Scottish tongue in its literary form, to modern poets, such as Burns, and the weaver poets of Ulster, including JamesOrr of Ballycarry, whom I consider to be the equal to Burns himself.
But, besides this interest in cultural, and especially linguistic, diversity, I have always had a love for an older tongue — the oldest tongue used in the British Isles, and from which the British Isles get their name. They are the Britannic isles — the islands of the British. This tongue receded dramatically in the face of successive invasions. It is the original tongue of Ireland — the name "Ireland" is in this tongue. It is the original tongue of Ulster, the original Lagan. It was also the language of the old Scots of the Lowlands. It is still present today in the British Isles in a much-reduced form. It is still used as a living language. I will read some of it:
"Mae pawb sy’n cymryd rhan yn cydnabod ei bod hi’n bwysig parchu, dirnad a goddef amrywiaeth o ieithoedd. Yng Ngogledd Iwerddon mae hyn yn cynnwys Gwyddelig, Scoteg Wlster, ac lieithoedd y gwahanol gymunedau ethnig sydd I gyd yn rhan o gyfoeth diwylliant Iwerddon."
This language is known in its native land as Cymric. It is the oldest British tongue; it is the language of the Welsh.

Lord Alderdice: Order. I had hoped that when Ulster-Scots was used, with my background in Ballymena and the accompaniment of the Scots-English dictionary, I might be able to translate. However, that not being possible, I must resort to my previous request to Members that when they speak in a language other than English they translate for the benefit of those who are unable to understand it. I would be grateful if DrAdamson could give us some guidance on what he has said.

Dr Ian Adamson: I would be delighted.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. You will note that the clock did not stop during your intervention. I am sure that the additional 40 seconds would be of advantage to the Member.

Lord Alderdice: I will be accommodating.

Dr Ian Adamson: The translation is
"All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity including, in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."
This language was, of course, the language of StPatrick, and as we are approaching StPatrick’sDay, I felt that I must mention the language of Patrick. I hope that this amendment will fall because I would like to use this language in future in the Assembly. I would also like to use other languages —

Mr Cedric Wilson: I thought that I made it clear, and I would not like DrAdamson to misinterpret what I said or to misunderstand me, that I do not wish to see any language prohibited from use in the Chamber. I am delighted that he has used Ulster-Scots and the other language that he has used today. I do not want to prohibit any language, but I do want it to be recognised that the official language of the House is English.

Dr Ian Adamson: I thank the Member for that intervention. I was, of course, using Cymric, or Welsh, rather than Ulster-Scots [Laughter]. If he would like me to use Ulster- Scots it would be
"Aaboadie takin pairt kens weel tha muckle thïng it maun be fur tae hae careful mind o an be gart thole wi owre ocht respeck anent oor throughither heirskip o leids, takin in fur Ulster tha Gaelick an Scotch leids, an tha leids o tha wheen ootlanner resydenters, ilka yin o quhilk bis pairt o tha fowk poustie o tha islann o Airlann."
It is my belief that true linguistic diversity will not reduce the significance of standard English. Using linguistic diversity in all its forms will show the absolute need for standard English , particularly in the Chamber.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Sono capace di parlare italiano oppure francese. Derò vorrei più di tutto parlare Gaelico perchè è la mia prima lingua.
I am, of course, speaking Italian. I have just said that I am able to speak Italian or even French. However I would prefer to speak Gaelic in the Chamber because it is my first language, but I appreciate that that might make it difficult for Members to understand me. The reason I support the use of the Irish language in the Chamber and facilities for those Members who wish to use Irish is that Irish is my native language. It is the language that I first spoke; it is the language of the community in which I was reared; it is the language with which I totally identify; and it is the language in which I speak most comfortably.
I would appreciate it if Members, in particular MrCedricWilson, would recognise that I find it difficult to understand why some Members find my speaking my own language so offensive.
I very much respect the words of MrAdamson and his respect for all languages, including Welsh, Ullans, Irish and English. It is unfortunate that there are those who favour simply having the English language and downgrade the Irish language. As my Colleague pointed out, they complain about parity of esteem for Ullans whilst trying to deny parity of esteem in respect of the Irish language. To me that is contradictory. That, in a sense, is looking on language as a political tool rather than looking on it as something which enriches us all. The Irish language in particular enriches us all.
Most of the place names around us come from the Irish language, and it would be very unfortunate if we were to lose the meaning of those place names. I ask Members to recognise that when we speak in favour of parity of esteem for the Irish language and Ullans — and I have learned a lot about Ullans since I came to the Assembly. I did not realise how much Ullans I spoke when I was growing up in Donegal. I know what words such as "sheugh" and "oxter" mean. These words were frequently used, and which I did not know then —

Mr Jim Shannon: Would the Member agree that the problem has been that there are many in this Chamber who use the Irish language as a political tool? Those who use Ulster-Scots — and we heard an demonstration of it a few minutes ago — do so to show the culture and beauty of that language. Ulster-Scots is used as a language; it is not used for any other purpose.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have already complimented the Member on the way in which he presented the importance of recognising the diversity of culture and language, and I also share that view. I would be disappointed if people looked on language as a political tool; that is certainly not the way I look at it. But I am afraid that there are people in Northern Ireland, on both sides, who tend to use it as a political tool.
MrWilson, in his contradictory approach to Ullans and Irish, has made that very clear. However, the use of the Irish language or Ullans in this Chamber — and it has already been mentioned by MrCedricWilson — would be totally in keeping with the Good Friday Agreement, which states
"facilitate and encourage the use of the language in speech and writing in public and private life where there is appropriate demand".
Mr Wilson asks if there is appropriate demand. To me, appropriate demand means a demand which is appropriate to the needs, identity and feelings of Members and the importance they attribute to a language. Therefore it is appropriate that I and some of my Colleagues who wish to do so are able to speak Irish comfortably and without feeling that we are putting other Members at a disadvantage.
Either we disadvantage those who want to know what we are saying but do not because there is no facility for translation, or we disadvantage ourselves by having to repeat what we have just said and therefore lose half of our time. There is an appropriate demand as long as there are people who want to use the language to express themselves in a manner more appropriate for them. It is not for others to decide what is appropriate for me, and I would not, for one moment, decide what language is more appropriate for MrWilson to speak. If he wishes to speak Ullans, then, I think, that is for him to decide.

Mr Cedric Wilson: It is rather sad that in order to put forward a case, the Member has to misrepresent what I have said. I want to make it very clear — and I thought I did make it clear at the beginning — that I have no objection to the use of the Irish language or any other language in this Chamber. I said that I had a grave concern that the right to use the language was being abused.
Mr Shannon pointed out that on the occasions when Irish has been used in this Chamber, it has been used as a political tool. It has been used in an attempt to embarrass or to cause some feeling of resentment among the Unionist Members of the House.
I have no difficulty with someone reciting a poem in Irish, or using the language if there is a purpose to it. When Irish is spoken there are bemused faces in the Gallery. The European Commissioner summed it all up.

Lord Alderdice: Order. I think that it is generally recognised that the purpose of an intervention is to make a brief comment, not to return to a previous speech.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Member has had a second bite at the cherry. The Good Friday Agreement seeks
"to remove, where possible, restrictions which would discourage or work against the maintenance or development of the language".
The one thing that will work against the maintenance or development of a language is the inability of those who speak it fluently to be able to do so. The death knell of a language is the absence of the capacity for people to use it. The agreement also aims to
"encourage the parties to secure agreement that this commitment will be sustained by a new Assembly in a way which takes account of the desires and sensitivities of the community."
There is a large Irish-speaking community in Northern Ireland, and many people in Northern Ireland have learned to speak Irish. There are Irish language schools in Northern Ireland, both secondary and — [Interruption] I am not giving way again. I have given way twice and it has resulted in two speeches. I have less than two minutes left. Members can speak afterwards if they wish.
Before I was rudely interrupted I was speaking about desires and sensitivities. There are second level, first level and nursery level Irish language schools in Northern Ireland, and they are all well attended and achieve excellent results. People are interested enough in the language to send their children to learn it. There are many places in Northern Ireland where that can be done.
Today at the lunch table I spoke Irish. On my way to another table I was greeted in Irish. I finally sat down and had a chat in Irish with one of the journalists. There is much Irish here and a great deal of interest in it. If there is the same interest in Ullans, and I think that there is some interest in it, I would support anything that could be done to promote and facilitate it as well.
I should like to see Irish being facilitated in the Chamber, and should like to speak it here. As a rule, I do not speak Irish in the Chamber, although I broke the rule a few days ago, because it is a courtesy to speak in a language that everybody understands. I and my party intend to ask for translation facilities, so that we will know that those who want to hear Irish will be able to do so. Sometimes English is not heard. Those who do not want to switch on their earphones need not do so. It is a matter of giving parity of esteem to the Irish language and to Ullans. Those languages are important to all traditions in Northern Ireland.

Lord Alderdice: Before calling the next Member may I make a brief plea on behalf of the staff? Members normally expect Hansard to be produced the following day by about half past eight in the morning. That requires us usually to finish our debates about six o’clock, and it is clear that we shall go well beyond that.
An extraordinary richness of language will have to be attended to. We had esprit de corps from the First Minister, Latin from Mr Close, and Welsh and Ullans. I am not sure whether it was MrClarke or MrO’Prey of our staff who gave me the translation from Italian into English as well as from Irish into English. That shows the range of skills at our disposal among the staff. [Interruption] From my recollection of recent Hansards, they seem to be particularly good on that. If the staff are to provide all that, it will take a little time.
Several Members wish to speak, and I call Mr Barry McElduff.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, Jim. A Chathaoirligh, I wish to speak against amendment No87 and to comment on Standing Order No70.
Sílim féin gur chóir go luafaí an Ghaeilge, ach go háirithe, go soiléir so-thuigthe sna hOrduithe Seasta.
Tá mise ag labhairt i gcomhthéacs an ChomhAontaithe agus ag cloí le spiorad agus le litir an ChomhAontaithe. De réir Alt 4 (sa rannóg um Shaincheisteanna Eacnamaíochta, Sóisialta agus Cultúir: i gcomhthéacs an bhreithnithe ghníomhaigh atá á dhéanamh faoi láthair maidir leis an Ríocht Aontaithe — mar a deirtear — do shíniú Chairt Chomhairle na hEorpa do Theangacha Réigiúnacha nó Mionlaigh, déanfaidh Rialtas na Breataine go háirithe i ndáil leis an Ghaeilge, más cuí agus más mian le daoine amhlaidh:
The Committee on Standing Orders has not yet arrived at an appropriate form of words in its report that gives proper recognition to Irish in a manner which is in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the Good Friday Agreement. I refer specifically to the section on cultural matters. The report should have been bilingual — Irish as well as English.
If we are to establish this new era, where better than in the Assembly can we demonstrate the resolute action in favour of the Irish language, which is specified most notably in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the section on rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity in the Good Friday Agreement? There are a number of points.

Mr Derek Hussey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Barry McElduff: Gabh ar aghaidh.

Mr Derek Hussey: If this report is of such concern to MrMcElduff, why did he not take the same time as MrRobinson and others to put proper amendments to it?

Mr Barry McElduff: I will answer that in due course.
I want to refer to the Good Friday Agreement, which talks about resolute action to promote the Irish language and to facilitate its use in both speech and writing. And, very importantly, the latter half of paragraph 4 of the section on rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity says
"encourage the parties to secure agreement that this commitment will be sustained by a new Assembly in a way which takes account of the desires and sensitivities of the community."
Standing Orders should reflect equal status for Irish and English in practical ways. The written record, for example, is required for the benefit of the burgeoning Irish language media which are ever present in this Building, particularly during plenary sittings. Teilifís na Gaeilge, Radio na Gaeltachta agus rudaí eile. They will no longer be disadvantaged by having to translate as well as report.
There is an added difficulty. I am disappointed that some Members fear to refer to the Irish language by name. Why do some Members remain in denial of the Gaelic language, afraid to speak its name, with a kind of begrudging tolerance, at best, and outright hostility, at worst?
Members may speak in the language of their choice. In my opinion, this is inadequate. We should be looking at Welsh as a closer model. I have a document here headed ‘Agenda for the National Assembly of Wales, All for Welsh, Welsh for All’, and I think that that is a better bilingual example to follow than that which is being proposed here.
Mr C Wilson said earlier that he is afraid that we may want to go the whole way and push for a simultaneous translation system, and he is absolutely right. We will be pushing for a simultaneous translation system for all 108Members, and not just for the Clerks and the Initial Presiding Officer.
Go raibh maith agat – mar dhea-ar an ábhar sin.
Nigel Dodds asserted yesterday that Irish is a foreign language. The use of the word foreign is a calculated insult to the Nationalist people, and to all those in the Nationalist and Unionist communities who are interested in Irish. Such references may register highly on the clapometer at junior DUP rallies in Portadown or Blossom Hill, or in parts of north Belfast to which NigelDodds feels close, but they are patently untrue. Irish is not a foreign language, although it may be good for NigelDodds’s popularity ratings in the DUP to say that. I remind people who make such statements that Gaelic Irish is the ancient language of Ireland. It is the birthright and the heritage of everyone who lives on the island of Ireland, and we are not sectional about that at all.
Since the late 1800s, consistent efforts have been made to revive Irish in everyday use throughout the country following its almost fatal decline in the wake of An Gorta Mór, and a history of outlawing and repressing it. Some people doubt the demand for the language. We do not all speak Irish today because in addition to being repressed and outlawed, it was made a language to be ashamed of to those who were willing to bend the knee. This part of Ireland has a state history of neglect and hostility to the Irish language.
The 1991 census is out of date because there has been considerable growth in Irish since then. It stated that in the six north-eastern counties, 79,012 people had a command of spoken and written Irish. More than 142,000 have some ability in either the written or spoken word. The numbers continue to grow. BridRodgers rightly drew attention to the success, the growth, the momentum and the dynamic in the Irish education movement and, in particular, in the Gaelscoileanna.
It is a mistake for Standing Orders not to make specific reference to the Irish language. Gaelgóirí expect and deserve better in a spirit of inclusivity. So, Le críochnú, ba mhaith linn go gcuirfí an Ghaeilge chun cinn ar dhóigh oscailte, dhearfach neamhbhagrach. Is linn uilig an Ghaeilge; is cuma cén dearcadh polaitúil, cén cúlra nó cén creideamh atá againn. Cé h-é nó cé h-í a bhfuil imní air/uirthi roimh an Ghaeilge?

Mr John Fee: I am conscious of the fact that staff have had a difficult job reporting our proceedings over the past couple of days. All I can say is "C’est la vie". Perhaps I shall say "C’est la guerre" before the end of the night.
Amendment No 63 refers to Standing Order 71. PeterRobinson spoke about it earlier, and one of his comments was uncharacteristically incorrect. He said that statute requires us to make this Standing Order and to nominate the number of members on it. Section 40(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states
"The members of the Commission shall be —
(a) the Presiding Officer; and
(b) the prescribed number of members of the Assembly appointed in accordance with standing orders.
However, subsection (3) states
" ‘the prescribed number’ means 5 or such other number as may be prescribed by standing orders."
That means that it is perfectly in order for us to reject Standing Order 71. We do not intend to do that destructively, or because we oppose the principle of inclusivity, nor have we taken umbrage at the way in which the Standing Orders Committee has arrived at its decision because, under the legislation, it has that right.
What we are concerned about are the thought processes that went into making this decision. The Standing Orders Committee may not have been as well informed as it could have been. This may have been a failing on the part of the Shadow Commission to explain precisely what it is was doing.
One peripheral point I would make is that the Shadow Commission, as it stands, has six members. The precedent that has been adopted, primarily from Westminster, is that the Chairman does not vote. This means that for major decisions, when members tend to turn out, there is a membership of five, and that is when divisions are most likely within the Commission. With an uneven number of voting members gridlock is very unlikely. It can happen but is unlikely to occur.

Mr Peter Robinson: Could the Member confirm that on the two occasions that there have been votes, they have gone against Unionists because Unionists are effectively in the minority on the Commission, even though they are in the majority in the House? The Commission does not reflect the balance of the House. On each occasion the Alliance Party has voted with Sinn Féin and the SDLP.

Mr John Fee: I will deal specifically with that later in my address. I am surprised that Mr Robinson has framed his intervention in those terms. Throughout the report of the Shadow Commission it was made abundantly clear that the role and function of the Commission is to act on behalf of each Member of the House and the House as a whole. None of its members are there as party political representatives. No other similar body, as far as I am aware, has people there as party political representatives. The Shadow Commission has largely set aside party political demands in favour of getting the best services for the House and for individual Members as well as the best support services to allow them to represent their constituencies.
That goes to the very core of one of the problems we have with Standing Order71. First, it steps outside the existing legislation and, without any real rationale, proposes to more than double the size of the Commission. We need to bear in mind that the Commission has to deal with much of the detailed administration of the House: staff complements; terms and conditions; grading and pay rates; management structures; and performance.
A small, tight team is infinitely preferable to a large number of people. The potential for running into legal, fair employment and staff problems is enormous. The House of Commons Commission has only six members and it has to deal with a staff of over 2,500, and a budget of approximately £370m. It is all about efficiency.
If we decide on certain pay or staffing which the staff do not like and so decide to strike, is it possible that we will get better agreement with 11 members representing party political interests or with six members representing the body of the whole House? We should be looking at these areas in more detail.
Inclusiveness is important, but the Standing Orders Committee has only looked at one method of achieving it. I do not believe that this is the best method. This proposal would add four or five people to the Commission but six people or 11 people could not do all the work required. The Shadow Commission has been looking at an alternative and that is the system that pertains at Westminster where most of the work of the Commission is devolved to House Committees.
Westminster has House committees for virtually every area of work. It has a finance and services committee; administration, finance, computer and communications committees; information committees; a range of domestic committees; a printing and publishing management group; a Whitley committee, which deals with trade unions and staff disputes; and committees for the refreshments department, the Serjeant-at-Arm’s department, the Library, the Official Report and the like. The work of the Commission at Westminster has places for hundreds of Members of Parliament.
The proposal by the Standing Orders Committee to expand the number of members of the Commission to eleven underestimates both the amount of work to be done and the possibility of devolving powers to committees of Members who could take on the administration of services in the House. The proposal vests too great a responsibility in too small a group, without taking account of what could be done to bring in other Members.
We have already established a committee to look after the gift shop. That may not sound like an important function but I understand that the gift shop in the House of Lords has a turnover of approximately £500,000 and a lucrative mail-order business. There is an entire management function in that area. We have proposals to establish a catering committee, one of the biggest and most important functions in the House of Commons.
For that reason, we will be voting against this Standing Order. I was remiss in not putting down an amendment. I suppose my party was remiss. We are not throwing this Standing Order out. We are merely using the only device available to buy time in order to consider a system of House committees which would involve all the Members of the House. The House of Commons Commission, which has an enormous budget and an enormous staff, only met five times in the financial year 1997-98, because the vast majority of its work was done in committees.
I recognise that I am rapidly running out of time. Perhaps we could ask the Standing Orders Committee to look at this again — I know we cannot refer it to them. We suggest that the Committee meets the shadow Commission, the board of management here, the Clerk of the House of Commons Commission and the officials in Scotland and Wales.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh agat a Chathaoirligh. I would like to speak against amendment 87 and in favour of retaining Standing Order 70, which states
"Members may speak in the language of their choice."
Drafting this particular Standing Order was a long-drawn-out process. We put forward various different wordings, but they were not acceptable to the Committee. We would prefer to have had the Irish language mentioned. One of our proposals was that English, Irish and Ulster-Scots be listed. Instead we have Members being able to speak in whichever language they choose. Tonight we have been treated to several different languages. It adds to the character of the Assembly.
If we were to adopt the amendment proposed by MrC Wilson, we would not have that choice. It is not a matter of his being able to say that he does not want to stop anybody from speaking the Irish, or that he does not want to stop anyone from speaking in whatever other language. By not having that choice we would be stopping people from speaking in the language of their choice. There was a lot of debate about this over the months in the Standing Orders Committee, and we did reach a compromise which recognises the diversity of the Committee itself and of the languages.
In the other devolved Administrations that we have talked about, Scotland and Wales, provision has been made for their languages, and I think that Westminster makes provision for English. We have variations in all these establishments, and it would be sad in this part of the country if we were to make exclusions, and that is the problem with this amendment, by leaving out Standing Order 70 and inserting a new Standing Order making the language of this Assembly English. That would exclude people from speaking in a language of their choice.
I hope that we can move to a new situation. The logic of the argument is in keeping with the agreement, and we do have in the Agreement, and several people have referred to this, including Mr Wilson, provision for the use of other languages. I ask people not to be hostile to the language. The language itself cannot do us any harm. It will not endanger any of us. People should not get too uptight about it and hostile to it.
Referring to Standing Order 71, I agree with Mr Fee that we should vote against increasing the membership of the Commission to 11. The Commission has worked very well over the last months. It has taken many decisions. The two votes referred to by Mr Robinson resulted in decisions being made, but many decisions have been taken with no vote at all.
The very fact that those two votes were taken is an indication of the amount of work that went on. We did have two days in London at Westminster, but we were working on the budgets as well, and we had quite a good working relationship while doing that with the staff of all the different agencies. The Assembly Commission has worked well in its short time in shadow form. It would be unfortunate now if we were to throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to keep in line on this matter.

Mr Conor Murphy: Will the Member give way? Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Does the Member agree that Standing Order 70, which is in front of us at the moment was one that our party had some reservations about in the Standing Orders Committee? We felt that it did not go far enough in granting recognition to the Irish language. Would he also agree that those members who supported it when it was voted for included members from both Unionist parties? In fact, all Unionist parties which were represented on the Standing Orders Committee voted for it, all those with voting rights.

Mr Francie Molloy: I think that that is correct, a Chathaoirligh. We did have agreement on that line.

Mr Norman Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Not all Unionist parties are represented on the Committee.

Lord Alderdice: I think that the Member referred to all the Unionist parties —

A Member: With voting rights.

Lord Alderdice: — with voting rights, but it is quite correct to say that your party is not on that body.

Mr Francie Molloy: I thank the Member for his intervention. It does clarify the fact that the matter did go to a vote, and there was consensus across the different parties on it. We abstained on that occasion because we did not feel that the Standing Order recognized the position of the Irish language as fully as it might have done, but we are quite happy to go along with the present line that people may choose to speak in whatever language they wish. I ask Members for their support.

Mr Alan McFarland: I am slightly concerned as a result of Mr Fee’s speech. When we left the Standing Orders Committee I understood that we had agreement among all the parties on the Commission. I am concerned on a number of fronts. First, we have heard an enormous amount today about proportionality, about cross-party support and about the ethos of how we do our Committee business and everything else, yet here we have a small committee of five, which cannot be representative of the House, of our strengths or of anything else.
Under normal circumstances, and indeed at Westminster, a committee such as this is a non-party organisation in that it does the daily business of the House. That is fine at Westminster, because there is not the problem there that we have here. But the Commission is about to have referred to it small matters —

Mr David Ervine: It is important to point out that the Commission was not treated by the Committee in the same way as other Committees. In other words, it was not a contentious issue or one of great difficulty. Does the Member agree?

Mr Alan McFarland: It did not seem to be difficult at the time, but it has obviously become a difficulty since. Two parties have indicated that they are going to vote against the Commission’s being proportionate in the same way as the other committees are.
The problem with this — and we are into political reality here in the Assembly — is that the Commission will be making decisions on minor matters such as flags and emblems. It is going to have to decide on whether or not we have simultaneous translation into Irish or Ulster-Scots, or whatever.
A number of things that are extremely political are about to arrive at the Commission’s door, and it may be difficult for Members to believe that these very contentious issues will get a totally impartial hearing. For that reason it was felt that we might boost the Commission up to reflect the party strengths and give a proper political view on how these things should function. The reality is that in NorthernIreland it is not possible to take a Westminster-style and completely neutral view on such matters.

Rev Robert Coulter: I support amendment No63 in the name of MrPeterRobinson.
I listened to MrFee with great interest. There is one thing which we must take into account and that is the matter of inclusiveness on the Commission. In the House everyone is represented, but we do not have this inclusiveness on the Commission. The argument that the Commission is going to set up a number of House committees is very good, up to a point, but those smaller committees can only bring reports back to the Commission. It is in the Commission that the real decisions are to be made. If we are to support the concept of proportionality or inclusiveness, the smaller groupings in the House must be represented on the Commission. They will not have their rights to full expression and inclusive treatment if they are left out at the decision-making point.
I am not questioning at all the working of the Commission, and I do not think that anybody in the House is questioning that. What we are asking for is that the Commission reflect fully all the groupings in the Assembly. That groupings have a right to be there where decisions are being made. If they have that right at the Committee stage, they should also have that right on the Commission. I support amendmentNo 63.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I wish to address my remarks to amendmentNo87, standing in the name of MrCWilson, to Standing Order 7. Whenever we address the issue of language, we consider whether or not the language is intelligible, comprehensive and comprehensible. That is always important, and at times we see glimmers of hope in the Assembly that it is all of those things.
At times language is used defensively, and sometimes it is used to perpetuate untruths — often outside the Chamber. Sometimes people allege that untruthful language has been used in the Chamber, and most Members are deeply offended by such accusations. Of course, there can be punishments and penalties for people who make such accusations.
Mr Wilson’s amendment draws attention not to where language is used offensively, but to where it is used as an offensive and political weapon. Some Members undoubtedly have a mother tongue other than English. Three Members at most could genuinely claim that position. It would be grossly unfair to the rest of Members to create an imbalance so that a significant minority were advantaged or privileged in relation to the vast majority of Members of all shades of political opinion whose mother tongue is English. It is their working tongue, and they use it in every aspect of their lives.
The Assembly should understand why Members felt it necessary to table this amendment. Irish has been used in Northern Ireland as an offensive political weapon. Not long ago, when I was at university, the Irish language was deliberately used to offend the majority population in Northern Ireland. At times it was frivolous and time-wasting. At one time it was suggested that the menu in the Students’ Union should be changed to Irish. When that failed, there was an attempt to subvert the menu by calling the Ulster fry the occupied Six-Counties fry and, of course, that led to a frivolous debate in the union.
Irish has clearly been used as a political weapon. Irish language street names have been imposed in Belfast and in other parts of the Province, and that is an example of its use as an offensive political language. I think that Members will agree that the Assembly is possibly at its most divided when it deals with the issue of language. There is division not only here but when Members go to other countries and raise the issue of the Irish language. That has embarrassed not only individuals, the people who were involved, but the entire electoral process. People take cognisance of that reality.
It would be a frivolous waste of time and money for the Assembly to plough resources, time and energy into special privileges for a small minority of Members who wish to use different languages.
It is important that those who wish to speak in a language other than English are not given those special privileges. Standing Order 70 states
"Members may speak in a language of their choice."
That does not seem to offer special privileges, but there is an opportunity for some Members to turn the Standing Order on its head by trying to create for themselves special privileges that they ought not to have.

Mr John Fee: I challenge the Member on his use of the term "special privileges". I come from a house in which the Irish language was used as often, if not more often, than the English language. That was common in many of the houses in the area. What does the Member mean by special privileges? In the RUC station in Newry I could pick up leaflets on every topic from the Highway Code to criminal law, and they are written in Japanese, Chinese and so on. But in that RUC station, the Ardmore police station, nothing is written in Irish.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: One of the reasons for dialects of the Chinese language being readily available and printed in Northern Ireland is that there is a genuine demand for them, and that demand has to be met. One of the largest non-English speaking populations in this city is people who speak Chinese or a derivative of the Chinese langauge.

Mr Barry McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: No. It is well known in the House that members of the Democratic Unionist Party do not give way to members of the IRA/Sinn Féin Party.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I will give way when I finish making my point. Our party has consistently taken the view that to give way to members of IRA/Sinn Féin is in some way to accord them recognition as a normal political party. They are apologists for murder and for things which never ought to have happened and have never been justified in our country.
I will certainly give way to the Member from North Down.

Ms Jane Morrice: With reference to the development of this argument about using English because it is the majority langauge and so on, would the Member, therefore, support the use of German in the European Parliament since it is the majority language of the European Union? Would the Member and the MEP for North Antrim be prepared to speak German — if they can follow that logic?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Member knows that that is not the tenor of my argument. I am not saying that Members should be restricted in any way over speaking any other language. What we must have is a safeguard to ensure that this Standing Order, as it currently stands drafted, is not able to be turned round and used as an opportunity, quite deliberately, to create a situation in which special privileges and opportunities are afforded and more public money, energy and resources are wasted. That would be quite wrong. That is why the language of the Assembly should be English and our proceedings conducted at all times in English.
One of the most genuine arguments comes from a Member whose mother tongue is a language other than English. She readily conducts her business in the House in English. She clearly finds it appropriate to do so because it is convenient to the vast majority —

Ms Brid Rodgers: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Let me finish the point.
It is convenient to the vast majority of Members, not only on this side of the House but also on her own side of the House.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I ask the Member please not to misrepresent what I said. I said that I speak English out of courtesy, but that I would rather speak Irish, because I feel more comfortable speaking that language. I also think that if I am not allowed to speak Irish — I reared six children in this country, all speaking Irish in an English-speaking area — Irish will die, and I do not want that to happen. That is why my children speak Irish, my grandchildren speak Irish, my husband speaks Irish and I speak Irish. I want to do the same thing here, but I want to do it comfortably.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The courtesy, as the Member put it, is appreciated. However, most Members here realise that if she were to conduct her political life and her political business solely in what she describes as her mother tongue, she would probably not get very far. That is a political reality and something that we have to accept.
That is why it is important that we make sure that there is no attempt by those Members who may want to use the Irish language as a political weapon to take this Standing Order and build into the Assembly special privileges and opportunities which ought not to be there.
We should be equal in that sense, and I do not believe that the Standing Order as it is currently framed affords us that safeguard, and we should support amendment No 87 in the name of MrCWilson on that basis.

Lord Alderdice: We have come to the end of the debate on this matter, and we now have to consider and approve the Standing Orders and amendments.

Mr Duncan Dalton: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 says that the number of persons on the Commission should be five. May I ask the Chair to indicate if the Standing Orders are silent on this matter?
Section 40 also says that the prescribed number of Members of the Assembly should be appointed in accordance with Standing Orders. Can you, Sir, indicate how the Assembly will appoint the Commission in the event of the motion to appoint the Commission, as it currently stands, being negatived?

Lord Alderdice: It is clear that the appointment of members of the Commission by the Assembly would be by election. That is not the matter at issue. The question that seems to be being asked is whether the Assembly would be in default of the legislation if the Standing Orders were not to include the clause that Standing Order 71 does, giving the number of Members. This is not a straightforward matter. It seems, on initial reading, that the default position is that if there is not a specific clause, the prescribed number is five, but that is not clear. It is necessary to seek legal advice on the matter, and I shall be doing that.
However, this vote tonight will not be a determination of the Standing Orders because they will not become operative immediately. To be operative in advance of the appointed day they would have to be determined by the Secretary of State. Therefore it is possible for the Assembly, in advance of the appointed day, to consider changes and amendments to some of the Standing Orders. The joint Chairmen have indicated that they wish to do that in the case of some of the other Standing Orders or, indeed, to put new Standing Orders.
There is nothing to preclude the Assembly legally from not taking or, indeed, from taking the Standing Order 71 that is here in draft form. The Assembly can take one line or the other without breaching the law.

Mr John Fee: On a further point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Oficer. The minutes of the Standing Orders Committee of 23February say
"it was pointed out that, unless the Committee wished to recommend a change to the membership numbers on the Commission, there was no requirement for a Standing Order and in any event a Standing Order could be produced, as required, at any point in the Assembly’s life."
That was the Standing Orders Committee’s understanding of things on 23February. Part of our reason for not voting for this Standing Order tonight is to work out what has changed over the weeks since then.

Lord Alderdice: I am grateful to the Member for mentioning that, but the statement in the minutes is the Standing Orders Committee’s view on the Standing Orders. That is all very fine, but it does not constitute legal advice, opinion, or, indeed, a ruling. I must continue with my current ruling which is that I will be seeking legal advice on the matter. For the present, Members can vote in whichever way they choose and they will not be breaching the law.

Mr Roy Beggs: Is it correct to say that the Assembly will not be able to change the Standing Orders before the determination because we will not be meeting before then?

Lord Alderdice: That is not correct. There has been no indication of the date of the appointed day. The advice that I gave the House earlier from the Secretary of State was in respect of the running of d’Hondt. That is not necessarily the same thing as the appointed day. I cannot accept your point of order.
We move to the last grouping of Standing Orders and amendments. We may have to ask the Secretary of State for an extension beyond 10.00 pm if we are to cover this and have the Adjournment debate.
Standing Order 63 (Oath) agreed to.
Standing Order 64 (Administration of Oath) agreed to.
Standing Order 65 (Sub Judice) agreed to.
Standing Order 66 (News Media)

Lord Alderdice: Is amendment No 65 moved or not moved?

Mr Peter Robinson: On the basis of the undertakings given by the Chairmen, not moved.
Standing Order 66 agreed to.
Standing Order 67 (Office of Clerk and Records of the Assembly) agreed to.
Standing Order 68 (Remuneration and Pensions) agreed to.
Standing Order 69 (Suspension of Standing Orders)
Amendment (No 64) proposed: 
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 64.
AYES
Unionist
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, MrsJoan Carson, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble.
Other
MrsEileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, MsMonica McWilliams, MsJane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 85Members. Of Nationalists, there voted none for and 32 against, which is 0% for. Of Unionists, there voted 21 for and 25 against, which is 45.65% for. The total vote for is 24.7%. I declare that the amendment is lost.
Question accordingly negatived.

Lord Alderdice: The effect of the negativing of the amendment is that Standing Order 69 is agreed to.
Standing Order 69 agreed to.
Standing Order 70 (Language)

Lord Alderdice: Is amendment 87 moved or not moved?

Mr Cedric Wilson: In moving the amendment, may I thank my Colleague DrPaisley and his party for their support —

Lord Alderdice: Members must understand that it is not possible to make a winding-up speech. That is completely contrary to Standing Orders. The only words that I can accept are "Moved" or "Not moved", regardless of eloquence.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, MrChairman. Several times Mr Robinson, in moving motions, has made a few comments. I am certain of that.

Lord Alderdice: On one or two occasions typographical errors and other things of that kind have been raised, but no significant comments have been made.

Mr Cedric Wilson: The amendment is moved.
Amendment (No 87) proposed: 
"The language of this Assembly shall be English." —[MrCWilson]
Question put 
The voices having been collected —

Lord Alderdice: I think the Noes have it.

Mr Cedric Wilson: May I ask for a recorded vote? I would like the Ulster public to be aware that the Ulster Unionists are opposed to English being the official language of the House.

Lord Alderdice: The question has been raised. It is clear that when there is a challenge to the Speaker’s view on whether or not the Ayes or the Noes have it, there is no alternative but to have a recorded vote.

Rt Hon David Trimble: It was quite clear that no challenge was made to the outcome. That was not challenged. A request was made for a recorded vote for a purely ulterior purpose.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I do challenge, Mr Chairman.

Lord Alderdice: In ruling that we will have a recorded vote in three minutes, I do not necessarily dissent from the comments made by the First Minister (Designate).

Ms Jane Morrice: May I have some clarification please on a point of order? Mr Wilson said that a vote against this would be a vote against English being the official language of this House. I do not see in this amendment any reference to English being the official language or not. I think he is incorrect.

Lord Alderdice: What any Member or any member of the public takes from any vote in the Assembly is not a matter that I can rule on, and that was not a point of order. Members must vote as they see fit, and they will be able to do so after Mr Ervine has made his point of order.

Mr David Ervine: I do not wish to challenge your ruling, but I fear that, given Mr Wilson’s reason for asking for a recorded vote, a dangerous precedent will be set — dangerous from the point of view of the populace outside.

Lord Alderdice: The position is simply this: a challenge is made in a parliamentary sense if, when the voices are collected, Ayes or Noes are called more loudly on the second time of asking. That is the usual and proper form of challenge. When that happens there is no alternative but to go to a recorded vote or, indeed, to a Division if the Standing Orders become extant. The reason behind the challenge is another matter entirely. We have no alternative but to proceed to a recorded vote.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 23; Noes 62 .
AYES
Nationalist
Nil.
Unionist
Frazer Agnew, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, PJ Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre De Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, MrsJoan Carson, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble.
Other
MrsEileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Ms Monica McWilliams, Sean Neeson.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 85Members. Thirty-two Nationalists voted, all of them Noes. The number of Unionist votes was 46 — 23 Ayes, and 23 Noes. The total number of Ayes represents 27.05%. The amendment is lost.
Question accordingly negatived.
Standing Order 70 agreed to.
Standing Order 71 (Assembly Commission)
Amendment (No 63) made:
Question put
The Assembly proceeded to a Division.

Mr Peter Robinson: This may be a unique occasion, but is it in order for the Chairman of the Committee, who presented the report on behalf of his Committee, to vote against a part of his own report?

Lord Alderdice: That was the question. Whether or not it was the intent, it is in order.
The Assembly having divided: Ayes 53; Noes 31.
AYES
Nationalist
Nil.
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, MrsJoan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
MrsEileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, MsMonica McWilliams, MsJane Morrice, Sean Neeson.
NOES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
Nil.
Other
Nil.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 84Members, including 31 Nationalists and all 46Unionists, all of whom voted Aye. The Ayes represent 63.1%, but as there is no cross-community support the Standing Order is not agreed to.
Question accordingly negatived.

Lord Alderdice: The Clerks at the Table try to accommodate Members who come to them with messages and so on. That practice causes difficulty during a Division, and I must rule that we cannot take material or answer questions during the count. Clerks have to record the responses of Members calling out their votes in different languages and dialects, and the task is sometimes made more difficult by the fact of Members not sitting in their usual places. It is unfair to expect the Clerks to take messages at that time.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. You said this morning that if you had definitive legal advice on our challenge to Standing Order37 you would give it before this point in the proceedings. Have you received that legal advice?

Lord Alderdice: I have sought it but have received no clear legal advice on the matter. I can only reiterate what I said earlier, that the Standing Orders will be scrutinised by the Secretary of State who has a responsibility to ensure that the Assembly’s actions do not contravene any of the Government’s international obligations. That is clearly in the legislation.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility to ensure that Assembly legislation and the actions of Ministers do not contravene international obligations, and she will guide the Assembly on such matters. I will continue to seek legal advice but I have nothing further to add to what I said earlier on.
We shall now proceed to a formal cross-community vote on the final Question. As I said at the start, to facilitate as smooth a passage as possible I was prepared to take no dissent as indicating cross-community support, but only on the condition that at the end there would be a formal cross-community vote. [Interruption]
Order. I must ask Members to take their seats. We have been trying to contact the Secretary of State to get permission for an extension beyond 10.00 pm, but have so far been unsuccessful. Unless we proceed quickly those who wish to speak in the Adjournment debate will have very little time.

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, if Members are agreed by voice, are you going to go through the rigmarole of calling out names?

Lord Alderdice: I am, because that is the one way to be clear that all the Standing Orders enjoy cross-community support. I said at the very start that we would do that, and it would be quite improper if I did not. The Standing Orders are a substantial matter.
We have different languages, without a Mexican wave as well.
Motion made:
That Standing Orders 1 to 70, as amended, be the Standing Orders of the Assembly. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]
The Assembly divided: Ayes 77; Noes 0.
AYES
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, PJ Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, MsBairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, MsMichelle Gildernew, MsCarmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, MrsPatricia Lewsley, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O’Connor, MsDara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, MrsSue Ramsey, MsBrid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Unionist
DrIan Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, MrsJoan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, RevRobert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, MrsIris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Other
MsMonica McWilliams, MsJane Morrice.

Lord Alderdice: There voted 77Members — 30 Nationalist Ayes and 45Unionist Ayes. Indeed, all 77 Members voted for. The Standing Orders clearly and conclusively have cross-community support.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That Standing Orders 1 to 70, as amended, be the Standing Orders of the Assembly.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I take it that the absence of the entire Alliance Party for that vote did not destroy the cross-community element.
On a more serious point, and speaking as a member of the Committee, may I say that we owe a debt of gratitude to all those Members who tabled amendments. In particular, my Colleague MrPRobinson put a lot of work into this.

Mr Denis Haughey: The Chief Whip wishes it to be known that he is now buying.

Assembly Business

Lord Alderdice: Members may be relieved to know that we have just received authorisation from the Secretary of State to continue through until midnight.
I draw Members’ attention, as I did on 1 March, to the fact that requests to speak in Adjournment debates can only be accepted up to the start of a sitting, and in the case of today, that was 10.30am yesterday, as distinct from requests to speak on other motions, which are generally forthcoming throughout the sitting. I also apologise to those Members who were not told that their names had been accepted for the Adjournment debate.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. —[The Initial Presiding Officer]

Nursery School Units: Admission Criteria

Mr Sammy Wilson: I can see that there is going to be vast interest in this issue, but I appreciate that the hour is late.
The issue that I wish to raise tonight is one of great importance, that many of our constituents may raise with us over the next few weeks or months. I will give Members some background to it.
This year the criterion for entrance to nursery schools has been changed at the last moment as a result of a dictate from the Department of Education, and that has caused great uncertainty. Many parents thought that they had secured a nursery place for their child, because of the length of time on a waiting list, because of the criterion that the school had used in the past, or because of conversations with the headmaster. They now find themselves, until the end of April, not knowing whether or not their child will have a place in a nursery school.
This situation has arisen as a result of something which many of us would have no disagreement with: the Government have said that preference will be given to children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. However, people are complaining about the way in which this has been introduced and about the implications of the Government’s ruling.
The Minister sent a letter to primary schools on 20January telling them that he had made a statutory rule. He said that the boards of governors would have to give priority to children from socially disadvantaged circumstances who were aged four before 1 September.
Many parents who thought that their children were at the top of the list, given the existing criterion, now find that that has changed, and in spite of what the Minister says, the change has been made without consultation.
The Minister claims that he consulted with schools and all interested parties when he was consulting with them on the Education Order in December 1997 and on the ‘Investing in Early Learning’ document, which was published in April last year.
However, no indication was given in those documents that this statutory rule was going to be imposed on the boards of governors. Indeed, Article32 of the Education Order makes it quite clear that the board of governors of each school shall draw up, and may from time to time amend, the criteria to be applied when selecting children for admission to the school.
Suddenly, on the basis of that Order, the Government are imposing a statutory rule that will take precedence over all the criteria which schools have set down.
Understandably, parents, having been told by school principals what the criteria would be, and having examined the situation in previous years, assumed that they had secured a nursery school place for their children.
The rule includes a definition of social disadvantage, but that also gives cause for concern. The definition of social disadvantage in the statutory rule includes only those children whose parents are in receipt of benefit. That means that people in low-income jobs who have young children — and many people whom I meet in my constituency go out to work for a few pounds more than they would receive in benefit in an attempt to break out of the dependency trap — find that, although they are not at home to look after their children during the day they will be most affected by the new criteria. The effort to target those who should have priority has been poorly thought out.
This rule, which deals with the subject of admission to educational establishments, totally ignores children with special educational needs. They should be given some priority. Not only has an ill-thought-out rule been introduced without consultation, but it actually disadvantages those who are trying to break out of the dependency trap. It discriminates against children who, because of special educational needs, would derive most benefit from nursery education. The rule is yet another example of how the direct rule administration has messed up education in the Province.
Under the Belfast Agreement, all Assembly legislation and every action by its Ministers will be subject to human rights scrutiny. We have here a classic example of a Minister acting without considering the human rights implications. These regulations discriminate between children. I do not have time now to go into human rights legislation, but it is clear that there is a human rights aspect to this.
The Assembly should highlight the injustice of what has been done, and draw attention to the fact that we have a system of government which callously walks over people who, in a proper democratic society, would expect to be consulted and considered before such legislation is enacted. If power is ever devolved to the Assembly, it will be the responsibility of whoever becomes Minister of Education to look into this matter quickly.
Parents who currently have their children’s names down for a nursery school place in September are in a state of uncertainty. As a result of the change, they will not know about places for their children until the end of April.
The ruling will also mean that many schools which are vastly oversubscribed — I can think of two nursery schools in my own constituency which, for the past four years, have had 50% more applicants than they have places — will not, because of their location, receive any additional funding from the Department to expand their nursery provision, although there is a clear demand for that.
I am sure that there are schools in similar circumstances all over the Province. Even though there is local demand, and it is quite clear that a school is oversubscribed, the rigid adherence to Labour Party dogma means that schools, perhaps for the next two or three years, will be unable to provide extra places.
I will be interested to hear what other Members have to say on this matter. I hope that I have outlined the main facts of the case in as short a time as possible, and I ask the Assembly for its support.

Mr Ken Robinson: I concur with everything that Assemblyman SammyWilson has said. I would also like to highlight some of the concerns which have been raised by the parents, governors and principals involved in the current controversy surrounding this new admissions criterion for children entering nursery schools.
I fully endorse the stated long-term aim of the Government to provide good quality educational places for all children in their pre-school year. Indeed, I am sure that every Member of the House has no difficulty in supporting that policy. However, as always, the devil has proved to be in the detail. This project has sought to give priority to those children deemed to be at a social disadvantage. Again, I am sure that no Member disagrees with that guiding principle even though there may well be 108 different views on what constitutes social disadvantage.
The problem which has arisen is that Peter appears to be being disadvantaged in order that Paul may overcome his perceived disadvantage. Unfortunately Peter’s parents have noticed this sleight of hand, and they are writing to, and phoning, Members of the House and of that other place as well. They are jamming the airwaves to express their displeasure. They are attending public meetings, filling the editors’ postbags of local and national newspapers and letting the Department know how displeased they are with the whole system.
The governors and principals of nursery schools, and primary schools with nursery units, are also less than pleased, but for different reasons. Over a number of years many nursery schools have evolved procedures which enabled parents to register their desire to acquire a pre-school place for their child. This was perhaps done by presenting the child, plus birth certificate, at the nursery school on the child’s second birthday. In other instances it was customary to queue up at the school to enrol the child.
These methods allowed the process to begin early and facilitated early notification that a place had been secured. They suited the school and relieved parents’ anxieties. This year that process had already started in many places. It is therefore easy to understand the anger and frustration which many parents felt when they were informed by the schools that new criterion was being introduced.
I have letters from parents, governors, principals and education and library board officers expressing their dismay. The method of implementing the new criterion, and the timescale involved, is putting extreme pressure on principals and schools. They are now asking, and I agree with them, that the Department urgently address these problems. They agree with the direction of Government policy, but believe that a transitional period would enable the maximum benefit to be derived by all concerned.
I therefore urge Members to contact the Department of Education to highlight the operational difficulties which this hasty implementation is causing for schools. I have written to the Minister, and I have spoken to several of his senior officials, expressing my concern that what should have been a positive step forward in educational terms is proving to be a disaster in public-relations terms.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I agree with what the Member has said and also with what the last Member said. Does the Member agree that the problem is not just with the difficulties that are arising from the criterion that has been introduced? The criteria themselves are essentially flawed as they fail to accommodate social disadvantage while attempting to accommodate open enrolment.

Mr Ken Robinson: I agree.
It has undermined the credibility of principals and governors, and many of them feel that they have not been adequately consulted. I have a copy of the consultation document and a list of the bodies which responded to it, and there seems to have been a good response, if patchy, across the country.
It has alarmed those parents who felt that they had shown some initiative and responsibility by enrolling their children using the accepted methods. It may have raised the expectations of parents who are in the target group, but whose hopes, wishes and aspirations may not be realised. As SammyWilson said, it has driven a wedge between working parents and those who are unfortunate enough to be in receipt of the designated benefits.
In some areas the location of the extra places may inadvertently lead to the demise of that natural integration which has been a source of pride and strength to local communities. It is incumbent on the Department to make it crystal clear that no nursery provision will be open exclusively to one part of the community. That is very important, since European Union special peace and reconciliation funding may be involved in the provision of the extra places.
It must be clearly seen that the extra places are used to benefit socially disadvantaged children from whatever section of the community, even though we may disagree on the definition of social disadvantage. There is some reservation about the July and August birthday cohort. It is felt by some that, perhaps on educational grounds, it is really the younger child that misses out through his lack of maturity when he finally enters primary school, rather than the older, more developed child who is the current focus of the criteria.
Further concerns revolve around the use of geographical limits. For instance, "residing within the parish of" may lead to a concentration of disadvantaged children, and may prevent that necessary social mixing which research shows is vital to language and special development.
A final group has grave reservations that the new regulation may be in breach of the legislation, and that is causing them difficulty in framing their new criteria. It is also leading to concern that the previous flexibility which governors exercised to enable places to be set aside for children with special educational needs, may no longer be sustainable.
I ask the Minister and his officials urgently to address those problems, which the hasty introduction of this legislation has caused to parents and schools. The need for a transitional period is now obvious to all. It would enable the new procedures to be adopted, and the laudable programme of expansion would then have full public backing. That would be an immense relief to all our weans.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Does the Member agree that the Government’s stated aim to ensure that every child has access to one year of pre-school education will not be met by the criteria? In my area there is a Catholic-maintained nursery school and a state nursery school. One is heavily oversubscribed and the other is about 25% undersubscribed.
The school that is 25% undersubscribed used to take an overflow from the school that was oversubscribed. That cannot happen this year. The undersubscribed school will be forced to take two-year-olds to make up the numbers. Registered three-year-olds will be deprived.
Regulation 2(vi) of the Pre-School Education in Schools (Admissions Criteria) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 gives priority to children from socially disadvantaged circumstances who will be aged two before 1September in their penultimate pre-school year, if their parents are in receipt of income-based jobseeker’s allowance or income support. It does not take any account of those in receipt of family credit. The provisions allow two-year-olds to get places before three-year-olds, some of whom will be deprived of pre-school places even though they had registered with a school. That cannot be right.
That is a very real danger. The measure has been ill thought out. There are no guidelines to say that two-year-olds even have to be potty trained or able to feed themselves. What will happen if these children should have accidents at school? Under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, for their own protection teachers must be accompanied by an assistant when changing a two-year-old child. Who is with the other 20-plus children? Most of the play equipment in these schools cannot be used by children under 36months. Do MrKRobinson and MrS Wilson agree that this whole situation is just a dog’s dinner?

Mr Ken Robinson: I agree with MrO’Connor on that point. It is causing grave concern to the teaching profession, which has qualified staff to deal with the children who need to be dealt with, those in their pre-primary school year, but is concerned about the lack of social training that some of the two-year olds have.

Mr Danny Kennedy: The hour is late, and I am far from home. I knew that I had the capacity for making moving speeches, but I did not think that most of the Members in the Assembly would move out of the Chamber. Indeed the entire Public Gallery has cleared, except for the Doorkeepers who have to steward it. I hope that I do not come into the same category as that described by LordByron when referring to his mother-in-law:
"She had lost the art of conversation but, alas, not the power of speech."
I am concerned about the new criteria for admission to nursery school units that have been established by HerMajesty’s Government. This is an important topic that has caused much concern among the people in my constituency of Newry and Armagh.
Many Members will have received representations from anxious parents. One such parent, MrsSandra McLoughlin, has written to me about the position of nursery places in the Hardy Memorial School in Richhill. Her daughter, Rachel, is two years old, and her parents are anxious to make provision for her education. MrsMcLoughlin queued outside the school from the early morning and eventually registered her child’s name at about 9.00 am. She returned home tired but pleased that she had obtained a place for Rachel in the nursery school. But all her efforts were in vain. That method of securing nursery school places has been superseded by the Government’s new proposals.
In many schools there are waiting lists for nursery places containing the names of the children of parents who queued to register their children for the 1999 and 2000 intakes. It is not acceptable that the Government have now effectively cancelled these registrations.
It is laudable that the Government should want to provide nursery-school places for all children, irrespective of class, creed or background. All parties in the House endorse that principle. However, the reality is that for the intervening period, before the additional nursery places can be provided, many problems have been created.
There is a real danger that the Government’s proposals, which are genuinely attempting to improve the lives of those people considered to be socially disadvantaged, will adversely affect many mainstream children. The Government should exercise care and discretion with this new allocation of child places, and it is in this area that I have some real criticism of the Government in general and of the Department of Education in particular.
The new arrangements appear rushed, and a glaring omission is the non-allocation of places for children with special needs. On this dog’s dinner — as it has been called — the Department of Education should liaise closely with the education boards, the boards of governors and the teachers and parents and take account of the prevailing local conditions before proceeding with these wide-ranging changes. I am happy to endorse the comments of my Colleague Ken Robinson and other Members of the Assembly. Although the hour is late and attendance is small, this is nevertheless a very important topic to which the Government ought to respond urgently.

Mr Jim Wells: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, it was remiss of Members not to place on record their appreciation of the way in which you and your staff handled the debate on the Standing Orders Committee. It was extremely well dealt with, and though many attempts were made to wrong foot you, they all failed. Your colleagues at the front did an excellent job.
It is uncanny that I am the last Member here to speak this evening, as I was the last person in the Public Gallery when the Convention fell in 1976. I was the last Member to speak when the Assembly fell in 1986, and I was the last person in the Chamber before the fire in 1995.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Would the Member reassure the House that he was not on the Titanic. [Laughter]

Mr Jim Wells: Lo and behold, Mr Speaker, as I may now address you I am the first Member to call you that, and maybe the last, unfortunately — I find myself the last Member to speak tonight. Could this be an omen, not that I believe in such things? Could it be that this is the last speech of the last evening of the Assembly. I do not know, it could well be. That is pessimistic, but it could well happen.
I am not here to crack jokes, Mr Speaker; I am here to speak on a sensible subject, that is dear to the hearts of many of my constituents in South Down.
Last Wednesday evening I spoke at a meeting in Kilkeel that was attended by 145 mothers. I was the oldest person in the room until another Ulster Unionist councillor arrived. They were all incensed by this decision to change the criterion for selection for nursery schools. Those mothers had queued from 4 o’clock in the morning in the rain to get their children a place in the nursery school in Kilkeel. Having sat out all night in very difficult conditions they then found a few months later, that the whole matter of placing children in nursery schools was completely up in the air.
The change means that those who are on income support or getting jobseeker’s allowance will have priority. That is the definition of the social disadvantage, according to the Department of Education. Never mind those who are claiming family credit, those who have decided that rather than sit on the dole they will take a lowly-paid job and try to do the best they can for their children. They may be bringing home exactly the same income as someone getting income support or jobseeker’s allowance, but they have chosen to go out and earn an honest day’s pay.
Those people are not being defined as socially disadvantaged, but people who are on income support are. Those who are on disability living allowance, mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and all the many other benefits which people claim but who do not meet the this new criterion will not get special treatment.
A week before the closing date for nursery place applications a man can walk out of a job and honestly complete an application form for income support in his social-security office. His child then goes to the top of the queue for a place in a nursery school. That is the obscenity of these regulations. Once the child is allocated a place, he can then go back to his job having got his child in. He will have satisfied the criterion, and that is totally unacceptable.
This is the problem in Kilkeel. In some lucky parts of the Province this is not an issue, because they have adequate nursery-school provision for almost all the children.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On the question of provision, one of the Minister’s defences, as I understand it, is that the number of places will rise. There are 45% of places at the moment, and that will rise to 55% and 75% by 2001. Does Mr Wells agree that it would have been better if the Minister had waited until those places were available before he implemented this scheme?

Mr Jim Wells: The Member makes a valid point.
Little does the Minister know that eight angry housewives from Kilkeel will be heading towards his office on Monday morning and, if he knew as much about Kilkeel people as I do, he would know that a good Mourne man is not born, he is quarried, and his wife has a strong character as well. Those people intend to demand that this scheme is put on ice for a year to enable the provision to be increased and, because the allocation system is in total confusion, to let the dust settle.
Kilkeel is an important part of my constituency and of south Down. If people in Moira or Lurgan were encountering this difficulty, it would not involve a journey to the ends of the earth to take their children four or five miles down the road to alternative nursery education. It might be inconvenient and difficult, but it is possible.
In Kilkeel, twice as many children as there are available places are chasing those places because there is no alternative. The nearest nursery provision is in Downpatrick, which is 24 miles in one direction, or Newry, which is 20 miles in the other. It is totally impractical for those parents even to seek alternative places, and those in Kilkeel are fully booked. Parents are in a difficult position.
I agree with Mr Wilson about special-needs children. It is totally wrong that the criteria have been drawn in such a way that a child with severe learning disability or physical disability is placed at the bottom of the queue, behind those on income support and jobseeker’s allowance.
I may be ruled out of order for what I am about to say, but it comes from the heart. It is grossly unfair that those who are working hard to keep their children and to give them the best possible start in life are being put in second place to those who have done little to support their children.
I was asked in Kilkeel on Wednesday night "Where are all of those people who are on income support and jobseeker’s allowance when the queue was on outside the school at 4 o’clock in the morning?" They were nowhere to be seen. They did not care enough about their children to come out and join the queue with the working people. But now, through no fault of their own, those people who queued are being penalised while those who did nothing to secure places for their children are going to the top of the queue. That is totally wrong.
At the meeting on Wednesday night, we agreed to take an all-party delegation representing all sides of the community and, in particular, the parents of children with special needs, to see the Minister. We intend to be forthright with him and tell him that the situation is unacceptable.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I apologise for yet another intervention. I agree with almost everything that the Member has said, but I should be grateful for clarification on his point about people queuing. I take it that he did not mean that every person on income support does not care about his or her children. There are sometimes good reasons why such parents are unable to avail of the opportunities to register.

Mr Jim Wells: That is an important point, and I am delighted that the Member has given me an opportunity to clarify the matter. I did not intend to imply that those on income support are any less loving or caring towards their children, but rather that when there was an opportunity to secure places for their children, very few of them took it. Those who had to go on to do a full day’s work had to queue to secure places.
I am not asking for preferential treatment for working parents or for those on family credit or income support. I am asking for fair treatment — for everyone to be treated equally in the allocation of places.
Just in case this is the last speech on the last day, may I thank you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, for your tolerance. You have had to endure my rather twisted and strange wit, which is difficult to live with. It has been a pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, and I hope that we will be back in a few weeks time and that you will be, in your rightful place as Speaker.

Lord Alderdice: On behalf of my Colleagues, the Clerks, the Hansard staff, the interpreters, the Doorkeepers and those who laboured in the Business Office to produce that enormous list of Marshalled amendments, under great pressure at times, I thank the Member for South Down (MrWells) for his kind comments.
In having such an extended sitting, we have required the staff to do rather more than they would be expected to do even in other places where the hours are long. I take your kind words as being essentially for the members of staff too. They have served us exceedingly well.
Adjourned at 10.21 pm.